Years ago, when exposure camps were new and not everyone had a personal skills trainer, I advised a group of coaches and trainers on their Regional Top 40 rankings. The coaches and trainers were biased toward their own players, naturally, but they also rigged the rankings by hosting their own exposure events.
Players signed up, did a few hours of drills, and then played a few games. Games are messy; players get lost; players play with players they just met, and maybe out of position. Drills, however, were controlled. The trainers reasoned the drills demonstrated the players’ skill levels better than the games.
Drills demonstrate experience. I was hired to coach a freshman high school team in the middle of tryouts one year. The varsity and junior varsity coach were ready to cut a player because he messed up the three-player weave. The boys who played AAU handled the weave expertly, but this boy, who was the third tallest player at tryouts, had never done a three-player weave. He never played AAU basketball like a lot of the players at tryouts. The coaches hardly explained the three-player weave, nor explained the purpose, because it was tryouts. They were looking for reasons to cut players. They assumed anyone who had played much basketball had done the weave.
I implored the coaches to play three-vs-three before the practice ended. They relented. This player who could not do the three-player weave stayed on the King’s Court for most of the evening. He was among the best players when we played the game, despite his relative lack of experience. He was removed from the day’s cut list because of his three-vs-three performance and eventually made the team because I weighted the game performance more than the drill performance.
He started most of the season. I used the Competitive Cauldron (The 21st Century Basketball Practice) to determine starters, which means he remained within the top 5 (of 14) in wins during practice for most of the season. Playing well and winning in three-vs-three games is more transferable and more predictive of success or playing ability than performance in the three-player weave.
The trainers rigged the player rankings because they did complicated drills with their players in their training sessions and used these drills in the exposure camp. Then, when their players performed the drills expertly, while other players struggled with a drill they were trying for the first time, they argued their players were more skilled, and thus should be ranked higher. Asking parents to pay directly for a higher ranking would have been no more biased, but plenty more honest.
Players improve at the task at which they practice. Practicing a multi-part two-ball drill improves one’s ability to perform the multi-part two-ball drill; it does not necessarily cause better game dribbling.
Last season I coached a very good 17/18-year-old guard on my professional team. A few times, when we worked individually when she was injured, I showed her a few two-ball drills she had never seen or tried. She struggled for one or two repetitions down and back before mastering them. She is skilled, the drills are relatively easy, and she is a quick learner.
Now, if she was at the exposure camp, seeing these drills for the first time, she would have been in the 0 percentile to start, as she had never seen the drills. By half-court, she would have been in the 25th percentile, let’s say. After three times down and back, she was in the 95th percentile.
First question: Did she improve? Yes. She improved her ability to do the drill. At the beginning, she could not do the drill. At the end, she could. She learned a new behavior. She mastered the specific pattern of the two-ball drill.
Second question: Did she improve her dribbling skill as measured through game performance? Unlikely. She learned the pattern. The pattern would not necessarily improve ball control, ball quickness, moves, etc. in a game.
However, learning the new drill may have ancillary benefits. Learning something new, and seeing her quick improvement, may have motivated her to practice more. Learning something new may have enhanced her confidence. Increasing motivation and confidence may improve performance without affecting physical skill levels and may improve the physical skill level through more practice and/or more belief in one’s ability. Some of the drills were designed to improve the reception of the dribble, or the ball control after the move, and with practice, her ball control may have improved slightly.
However, think back to the exposure camp. She may have impressed coaches who watched her struggle at the beginning and master the drill by the end if the exposure camp gave her three tries to go down and back.
What if players only went one length of the court? Now, this professional player looks unskilled compared to players who have practiced this specific drill over and over. Are the coaches really evaluating skill, or experience? What does skill in this context mean? The ability to perform a dribbling drill that may or may not transfer to the game. Again, this is much like cutting a player because he messed up the three-player weave the first time he saw it.
I skipped the drill portion of exposure events when I was a college coach. I was not interested in the players’ ability to do drills I likely would never use. However, for a perceptive coach, the drills may have the opposite effect as the trainers intended.
I would be more impressed by the player who struggled in the drills, but dominated the games because she is good at things that are harder to teach: Instincts, competitiveness, reading the game, shot making, and more. She struggles with things that are easiest to improve, as three repetitions of the two-ball drills instead of one would have demonstrated. She may demonstrate more potential because her struggles in the drills may indicate less coaching, less practice; maybe a three-sport athlete who has more room to grow once she dedicates herself to basketball. I always leaned toward the multi-sport athlete over a single-sport athlete if it was close.
What does it say about the player in the 99th percentile of drills who struggles during games? Honestly, it probably says her parents are rich and can pay for more training than any of the other players. How much do you expect a player who has mastered all the drills and had all the coaching, but cannot perform in games to improve?
Now, again, a perceptive coach may notice something or ask why. Why does this player who looks skilled in drills or practice not perform during games? Is it psychological? Athletic? Injury? Coaching? Parents? I coached a player once who could barely function when her father attended a game, but was arguably our best player when he was absent. There are a myriad of possible explanations. Is it something we think we can improve or an impediment we think we can eliminate to move her game performance closer to the drill performance? Or is it simply that the drills are removed from the game and the player excels at the tasks she has practiced with her trainer, but not the things that occur the most during games?
Drills are not good or bad. Their value depends on the reasons for their use. In terms of identifying talent, one wants to be as close to the game as possible. Three-vs-three is good as an alternative because some players get lost in five-vs-five games, especially post players or less assertive players. Three-vs-three games can balance out possessions and ball contacts. One-vs-one often can help identify different elements of a player’s game than five-vs-five, potentially showing off shot creation, shot making, individual defense, or first-step explosion that is less noticeable in a quick five-vs-five scrimmage.
Shooting drills may help to identify potential shooters who struggle during competition, provided the coach can determine the differentiating factors between successful practice shooting and poor game shooting and not simply rely on more reps. Is it the speed of the game? Reading the defense? Shooting against closeouts? Balance or deceleration after movement? A lingering injury? Slow footwork? Lack of confidence? Insecurity (feeling selfish for shooting too much or shooting after a miss)? Different drills may help to identify the cause, if the coach asks the right questions.
However, once a player masters a drill, the drill’s value and necessity decrease. Once my guard mastered the two-ball drills, we rarely tried them again. She may have practiced them more on her own. If so, great. They motivated her to practice more and gave her something to practice. Regardless of the effect on game performance, they had a positive effect. Unless I felt the drill addressed a specific weakness or problem of hers, we did not continue with the drill. They were there to keep her busy when she was injured and to challenge her to learn something new. We spent practice time on drills that were much closer to the game demands, especially in terms of speed.
Drills are not the enemy, but they are not the end, or the goal, either. Drills are a tool. The right tool for a specific purpose can improve a player’s game or solve a problem holding back the player. Once solved, however, more and more does not necessarily lead to continued improvement. Instead, players need to move to the next problem, which often is using this newly-improved skill against defenders. Live situations help to elicit the next problem requiring some regression to improve or solve. Practice, especially individual skill practice, should include constant progressions and regressions, not endless repetitions of a single stimulus.
Evolution of 180 Shooter: A 21st Century Guide has more on these ideas, specific to shooting development.
Sound, as usual.