The history of individual skill trainers
Part 2 on individual training: Maintainers and trainers
How did we get to this point in basketball evolution where every player seemingly requires his or her own individual skills coach, and Insta coaches are gaining in popularity throughout European basketball hotbeds?
Nobody had an individual skill trainer when I was young and playing in the 90s. Toward the end of high school, I heard of a few strength and conditioning coaches who were training speed and quickness with plyometrics, but they primarily worked with professional players and the rare wealthy or prodigious high-school athlete. As I neared college graduation, while coaching high-school and AAU basketball, I learned of, met, and ultimately became an individual skill trainer.
Often, the training was babysitting as much as anything else; in Los Angeles, parents would not allow their children to go to the park or stay after school to shoot on their own, so they hired trainers to work with their children while they drove around to pick up their other kids. Very few of these parents hired trainers because they imagined their children developing into professional athletes, and even college scholarships were not a major focus for most. These were predominantly wealthy parents who wanted their children to fit in, make teams, make friends, and play well at the high-school level to boost self-esteem and bolster Ivy League college applications. Making a freshmen or junior varsity team was seen as an accomplishment, or the goal, for several players I trained early on (back when 60-80 players tried out for 12 spots on a freshmen team). There also was a blossoming anxiety; parents wanted their children to avoid failing.
I did not play organized basketball or receive coaching until I was in 5th grade; now, children join organized leagues as young as 5 years old. We learned primarily through play at recess and lunch, in my front yard, at my neighbor’s house, and at a court down the street. Rarely did adults interfere; occasionally I played HORSE with our neighbor’s dad or played 21 against an older guy at the court down the street when nobody else was there for pickup games. Nobody was anxious about our relative success; nobody cared about our shooting technique. Nobody sat the bench.
Now, we have completely eliminated play from the development experience (see: Free Play: A Decade of Writings on Youth Sports). Anxious parents worry about their children and want their children to be prepared for these organized leagues and coaching at five or six years of age, which means hiring individual trainers before a child ever plays basketball or joins a team. I joined Little League and soccer teams at six or seven years old, and I had never played anything more than catch with my dad in our front yard. We joined teams that young to learn to play the game. Now, parents want their children to be good before joining a team rather than joining teams and leagues to learn. They don’t want their children to fall behind or fail.
Parents called and asked about working with their six or seven-year-old when I worked as an individual trainer in the ‘00s. They did not envision professional careers for their progeny, nor were they living out their failed athletic endeavors through their children. They were anxious. They just wanted their children not to suck and to fit in with their teammates. Often, these children had never played basketball at all: Not at recess, not at the park, not in their front yard. I replied in the same way: Take your child to the park; if he shoots on his own for close to an hour without being distracted or losing interest, I’ll try one session. I never heard from these parents again.
Next, individual trainers with more competitive, older players exploded as a reaction to AAU for three reasons: (1) Sports were becoming year-round, as coaches, parents, and players bought into the myths of early specialization, 10,000 hours, and more, more, more; (2) AAU teams were fielding players from large geographic areas, meaning practices were uncommon or nonexistent, so parents substituted individual training for team practices during the fall and spring; and (3) parents and players were buying into the idea that coaches were incompetent and practices did not help their sons and daughters.
As we transitioned to year-round sports, players moved from high-school basketball five to six days per week to AAU basketball that often was three to four days a week, mostly tournaments on the weekends plus one or two weeknight practices. Parents added individual training one to two times per week to replace the missing days of practice from the high school season and maintain the five to six-day per week schedule. This was exacerbated by the all-star teams that practiced together only when they did not have a tournament; they played or practiced on weekends, and weeknights were free, as players such as Lake Oswego’s (OR) Kevin Love played for a Los Angeles-based team and Akron’s LeBron James appeared in some tournaments for the Oakland Soldiers, as two high-profile examples. Parents assumed these elite players needed more, as parents and players now envisioned scholarships and million-dollar professional careers. They could not afford to go four to five days without a serious practice, so they invested in individual training to fill this gap.
As individual training grew in acceptance — baseball players have hitting coaches, quarterbacks have quarterback coaches, why shouldn’t my son have a shooting coach or skills trainer? — the animosity between trainers and coaches grew. Individual trainers were invested in a single player, whereas the coach had a group. The individual coach focused on the individual and his needs, whereas the coach juggled the needs of each player, the group, team organization, game preparation, and more. Furthermore, players succeeded in training sessions.
Parents watched their sons and daughters make 70-80% of their shots in individual workouts, then shoot 30% in games. Parents, players, and trainers blamed the coach for not using the player correctly, not getting the player enough shots, or teammates not passing to the player, rather than blame the trainer because the training did not transfer to game performance. Parents paid $50-100 an hour to the trainer to improve the player’s skills, and all evidence during the trainer’s workouts showed improvement. Clearly, the trainer was not the problem; the parents were getting what they paid for. Thus, the problem must be the coach. I knew parents, especially in youth leagues with mandatory play rules, who stopped attending practices, and instead paid to work out with a trainer. This, of course, is what supercharged the individualization of basketball.
Trainers were viewed as experts, and coaches as idiots, because the trainers could give all their attention to one player for an hour. Of course, that attention was bought and paid for. Trainers did not have to bench players, enforce rules, do grade checks, distribute playing time, and more. They never had to be the bad guy. Couple that with the player’s inevitable success in an individual workout with unopposed drills, and parents and players loved their trainers. They escaped all blame and received all praise, increasing their credibility and prominence. The best players used trainers, and everyone assumed trainers were necessary, and good, and the industry exploded. Now, it seems we have more trainers than coaches, and why not? The job of an individual skill trainer is infinitely easier and more profitable than that of a youth or high-school coach.
The trainer in the video juxtaposed individual training with pickup basketball and training against defenders. One reason, to which McGrady alluded, is repetitions. That is one great thing about individual training: Players always can get better. If the training is not transferring, we’re training for a marathon not a sprint. If it was easy, everyone would do it. When you are not practicing, remember, someone somewhere is practicing, and when you meet them, they will win. There isn’t much traffic on the extra mile. More, more, more. Grind, grind, grind.
Of course, more is perfect because more repetitions requires more training, which means more money for the trainer. And, it is difficult to argue against this ethos; nobody suggests doing less equals more success (until recently; see Feed the Cats). Americans identify work and effort with the road to success, so promoting more and harder fits our mentality, whereas few people really can identify good versus bad coaching or training. Even things I would argue are 100% indefensibly bad coaching, such as demeaning a player, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and more, often are defended publicly by many because their coaches treated them in the same way when they played or yelling is a part of coaching or society is too soft now. If we can’t even agree abuse is bad coaching, how are we going to identify various shades of grey when discussing proper feedback, drill design, challenge point, and more?
[Note: Most of the below is from an article I wrote around 2005.]
Beyond repetitions, the intent of individual training, whether stated explicitly or not, is deliberate practice: Parents hire trainers to improve their children’s skills (not always, as some parents want a mentor, gym time, a babysitter, etc.). There are, however, two types of trainers: Trainers and maintainers. Trainers teach skills and create individual skill progressions, drills designed to elicit specific improvements; maintainers (workout gurus) run players through general drills with little instruction or feedback, emphasizing work and intensity.
Years ago, I shared court time/expenses with a coach who I had known since I played; he was a proud workout guru who emphasized work over everything. He used one half court, and I used the other. He summed up the difference between us when he said, “Parents like their kids to work with me because they look tired when they finish.” I answered, “I hope parents send their children to me because they know they will improve.” Work or improvement?
He was correct; parents struggle to differentiate between good and bad drills, feedback, and instruction, but exhaustion is visible and obvious. Parents know tired, even when his methods were flawed (plyometrics when players were fatigued to develop “speed”) and dangerous (multiple players jumping onto unsecured portable bleachers simultaneously); they cannot identify great teaching methods, logical skill progressions or the proper challenge point.
Almost any training with or without any trainer will help beginners and average players improve. Wearing out players who were far from optimal condition through exhorting effort and emphasizing intensity improved their conditioning, which translated to some improvement. Basic dribbling and shooting drills lead to minor improvements with young and inexperienced players simply due to time on task. One hour on the court with a ball is better than one hour of not doing anything (within reason; an overtrained player may benefit more from rest, a sauna, or a massage), but may not be better than one hour playing pickup, shooting on one’s own, working with a different trainer, lifting weights, or another use of the hour.
One thing about which I have softened over the years is the value of workout gurus. They provide value, as long as one understands the purpose or goal.
Years ago, a young professional player joined my workout with a college freshman and a junior-varsity high-school player after he finished with a workout guru on a different court. He said the other workout consisted of some conditioning shooting drills and scrimmages with minimal teaching, instruction, or specific feedback. The emphasis was to go harder and get in better shape. I scoffed at this; that was not skill development; that was not individual training or deliberate practice.
Now I see two main benefits from those workouts: (1) Mixed-age groups allow players to stare (Dan Coyle, The Talent Code) at and learn from other (better, older) players, whether mimicking a move or their practice effort, intensity, and concentration; and (2) competition and play, essentially pickup games. I learned as a player from playing pickup games and shooting around with older players at the court near my house and offseason pickup games at my high school; the mixed-age workouts have replaced the informal experiences that have disappeared in today’s society.
The value is not the drills, instruction, or feedback, as workout gurus typically use general drills and emphasize work and effort, not specific individual skill instructions. I recommended players to work out with the workout guru to play against better, older, more professional players, opportunities I could not provide with my limited space and younger clientele. There is value for players when the expectations are clear, although the value is primarily the gym access and connections to players, not the trainer’s instruction, feedback, drills, etc.
Workout gurus primarily maintain the current skill level of good and experienced players, whereas a good trainer offers a motivated player an opportunity to improve a specific skill or aspect of a skill. A good trainer creates an environment of deliberate practice, which is necessary for an experienced player to improve.
It takes about 50 hours of play to reach an acceptable performance level, according to Florida State University professor K. Anders Ericsson, an expert in the science of exceptional performance. Improving beyond an acceptable level requires deliberate practice (see Fake Fundamentals: Volume 3 for more). Dr. Ericsson wrote:
“Involvement in the relevant sport activity, access to instruction and training, and social support were necessary for the development of high levels of achievement. The main focus of deliberate practice was to explain individual differences among those individuals who had had access to all necessary training and practice opportunities.”
Most players engage in hours and hours of practice with minimal improvement because their practice is not deliberate. A 30% shooter shooting thousands of shots in the same way should improve slightly, but will not make the leap because more is not enough; the practice needs a purpose. As even Kobe Bryant, the workout guru’s patron saint of grinding, said, “It's not about the number of hours you practice, it's about the number of hours your mind is present during the practice.” The mind must be present for the practice to be deliberate.
Deliberate practice does not require an individual trainer or coach, but it is the reason players and parents seek trainers. Some players invest hours, but their game stagnates, resulting in frustration. Others invest less time, but improve. The answer, Ericsson explained, is deliberate practice.
A player proudly told me he shot 200 shots per day, which demonstrated his dedication to improve. I asked how many he made. He had no idea. Shooting around is not deliberate practice. In contrast, I worked with a player who developed into an NCAA All-American who tracked every shot he took for a year as he progressed from a 29% high-school shooter to a 50% three-point shooter in college (see 180 Shooter for more info).
“Repetition of the same activity is nearly always associated with increased performance under some conditions, namely when the participants are motivated, when the task is simple and appropriate strategies are used, and when immediate informative feedback is available” (Ericsson).
The difference between a trainer and a maintainer or workout guru is the “use of appropriate strategies” and “informative feedback.” Maintainers ensure players get plenty of repetitions and motivated players who shoot a lot will improve slightly; maintainers appear effective because players improve a little and leave tired. They are grinding and putting in the work, and because most of these conditioning shooting drills involve no defense or decision-making, players shoot a relatively high percentage: The work is showing!
Using a trainer without the use of appropriate strategies and informative feedback is ineffective for skill development. As Dr. Ericsson wrote:
“In the absence of adequate feedback efficient learning is impossible and improvement only minimal even for highly-motivated subjects.”
The appropriate strategies mean creating drills to meet the player’s needs, attack his weaknesses, and improve his strengths. A player worked with me for the first time and had considerable balance issues, even from the free throw line. He had tried several trainers, yet nobody mentioned his balance. The appropriate strategy was not more shooting, but fixing the balance issues and teaching the player to bend properly. It was a relatively simple fix, but the practice was individual and deliberate. More shooting drills, more work, higher intensities, and more likely would not have corrected the problem.
Trainers must see and explain the root cause of the mistake and help players learn to feel the proper mechanics of the shot or move to provide informative feedback. When to instruct and how much to instruct is an art one learns as he or she spends more time coaching; however, feedback is essential to improvement.
Last summer, I watched a high NCAA DI player work out with NBA draft picks; he missed seven straight shots and after each one, motioned with his arm like his problem was his follow-through because the shots were short, and most players and coaches associate short misses with the follow-through (or knee bend).
His problem was hip extension, but his workout guru (called one of the NBA’s best skill developers) never mentioned his hips, nor provided corrective feedback of any kind. He did not change the drill to force the player to change his hip extension. He lacked the appropriate feedback, and there was minimal improvement or efficient learning. He shot more and missed for the same reason, and even when he made the shot, he did not correct the error that limited his performance. He strengthened his shooting habit, which happened to be fairly ineffective (34% three-point shooter in previous season) and focused his attention on the wrong area to improve on his own. However, he broke a sweat and got up his reps, so everyone felt like they accomplished something and got better. Keep grinding. [Update: His 3FG% fell 1.2% the next season]
Individual skill development should be individualized; an entire group doing the same drill and receiving the same feedback is not individual skill development simply because there is no defense. Unopposed practice is not individualized practice. Basketball is a team game, and there are no individual skills: Therefore, the vast majority of practice should incorporate defenders, even when focusing on a single player’s skill. A line of players dribbling around a cone and throwing hook passes to the corner is not individual skill training for a point-guard or pick-and-roll; instead, individual skill development for a point guard or pick-and-roll requires defenders to read and live teammates as passing options. The drill’s design and feedback is individualized.
Pickup games, whether at the park or with a workout guru, provide opportunities to try new skills and get repetitions in game settings without the performance pressure of playing in front of crowds or one’s coaches. These are vital learning experiences, especially in mixed-age settings where players play against younger and older, bigger and smaller players. A true individual training session is for the smaller details or more individualized work; an opportunity for the coach or trainer to design drills specifically for one player and provide more specific, individualized, and immediate feedback. These sessions require the player’s full mental concentration, which limits the practice duration because maintaining full concentration is difficult. Our individual training at the college level was never more than 30 minutes. This is not the same as a weekly appointment to run through the same drills each week, break a sweat, and get some reps. That’s a workout; it’s exercise. Individual skill training is different and should align more closely with deliberate practice.
We should not look at training or development as either/or: Players need pickup games or individual skill training. Players need all of it. They need team practices, pickup games, workouts, and individual skill training. The amount of each depends on the player, age, skill level, and more. Each has a place and a role; we simply need to be more honest in our evaluation of what each provides and better understand how skill develops and translates to game performance. Some improvement requires bodies to practice against; some changes are best made individually with a coach providing specific feedback. Some practice should be individual: No coach, no trainer, no friends, just a ball, basket, and imagination. Player development encompasses all of it, and the more players vary their training, and use the environment that meets their needs at that moment, the more effective the training.