Last week, my tweet about Curry shooting crafties elicited four general responses:
Learning is linear or requires steps.
Two-ball drills are work and work leads to improvement.
NBA players have more time.
Confirmation bias.
Learning is not linear. One thing does not always lead to another. I wrote about this with regard to form shooting (Fake Fundamentals, Volume 3) and deep three-point shooting. Shooting well from 25′ requires total body coordination, rhythm, timing, control and strength. Shooting well from 4′ places far fewer demands on these abilities, and often, players shoot flat-footed with almost no movement from their lower body and no total body coordination. Form shooting is not a step one must master in the pursuit of a better jump shot; in most instances, form shooting is a completely separate skill, potentially related to one’s free-throw shooting, but not a jump shot. However, because form shooting looks like three-point shooting, is clearly an easier shot, and everyone who shoots well from 25’ also shoots well from 4’, we assume the relationship is causal: Form shooting is a requirement for good jump shooting. Our adult perspective trusts linear, easy before hard models, but one causes the other.
There are not steps every player must achieve to progress. This belief results in the goofy-foot layup being called a “wrong-footed” layup and corrected in young children, only to be re-taught later. We believe in one correct progression to finishing at the basket, which begins with the traditional outside-hand, inside-foot layup. However, just because our culture has adopted this progression does not mean the progression is correct or players cannot learn skills in a different order.
Shooting a handful of high-arcing layups, even beyond a young players’ skill set will not adversely affect one’s ability to make a layup, just as players shooting a few half-court shots at the end of practice will not alter their free-throw or three-point shooting. The only cost is time, as when players practice one thing, they take time from something else. However, the motivation from new challenges and exploring new skills often outweighs the time cost, as players invest more total time when motivated. Years ago, other coaches scoffed at some players as we practiced and1 moves at basketball camp, but the five minutes of and1 moves got the players to spend the majority of their lunch period doing drills to improve their dribbling skills, while the other players and coaches sat in their air-conditioned dorm rooms. Is wasting five minutes to increase practice time by an hour a worthwhile investment?
Work is not the way. We accept work, grinding, getting in the lab, getting more reps, etc. as the solution to skill development because there is no counterargument. Nobody reaches perfection, so we always can say more will cause improvement. How much more? Nobody knows, but there is no 10,000-hour rule (Fake Fundamentals, Volume 3). Even Kobe Bryant, the player cited the most with regards to work ethic and volume of practice creating his success, 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.” Effort is required, but is insufficient.
Steph’s pregame two-ball dribbling routine looks like practice. Of course, looking like one’s practicing something important or fundamental is the genesis of #FakeFundamentals. There are uses for two-ball drills, but an expert such as Curry doing stationary two-ball drills during pregame warmups is not skill development. He is not adding anything to his game through this routine. Instead, the routine likely is used for the same reason anyone uses a routine in daily life: Reduce stress, reduce the need to think, save time, build momentum for the game, build confidence, and more.
Furthermore, work is not the only way to improve, nor is it likely the best way to improve, but it is the thing we most associate with improvement. We believe in repetitions, additional hours of practice, effort, and more, and we dismiss play, although we learn more during the periods when play dominates than in any other period of our lifetimes (see Free Play: A Decade of Writings on Youth Sports).
Years ago, I wrote about a comment from a coaching message forum attributed to then Philadelphia 76ers Head Coach Brett Brown:
“Brett Brown said that while it's not uncommon for an NBA player to dramatically improve their shooting after they enter the league, very few seem to significantly improve their ball-handling. It seems to be a skill that players learn young or not at all.”
Do you have to be a young child to develop your dribbling skills? No, but it helps, because few adults or professional players engage in the playful learning environments like those in which children develop their dribbling skills. NBA players may not develop their dribbling skills because they rely on straight-line dribbling drills or attacking cones and chairs rather than playing one-vs-one in confined spaces or tag.
We believe the proper way to develop skills is to increase repetitions and effort in the work, the straight-line drills, despite an NBA head coach suggesting these drills do not lead to improvement. We disregard tag and other playful games and experiences because they are not work; they do not meet our expectations or biases for the manner in which players improve. Again, we favor what looks like the path to improvement rather than the activity actually causing improvement.
NBA players have more time during warmups, but this argument goes both ways. NBA players have more time to create elaborate warmup routines including two-ball drills, just as they have more time to expend (waste) shooting high-arcing layups. I would not encourage my players to do either in a 12-minute warmup, but the one or two high-arcing layups waste less time than the three-minute two-ball routine.
Finally, in the end, everything comes back to confirmation bias: People tend to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information consistent with their existing beliefs. Coaches believe two-ball drills are a basic fundamental to improve dribbling skill; therefore, they encourage their players to follow NBA players who do two-ball drills. The high-arcing layup is not viewed as an important fundamental, and is written off as a throw away or wasted time, and consequently coaches discourage their players from following NBA players who shoot these shots. We disregard the high-arcing layup because a similar shot is rarely attempted during games — although unlike dribbling two balls, it is possible to shoot like this during a game — and we miss the potential related positive effects. We laud Curry’s creative, touch, and shot making; do we believe it arises from stationary two-ball drills or standard five-spot shooting drills?
Beyond the skill standpoint, Curry plays the game loose. He is relaxed, enjoying himself. The high-arcing layup may not cause these behaviors, but they are a part of the package. Can a coach expect a player to play loose, free, and joyful but warm up with a very regimented, structured, serious routine? Of course, as much as coaches appreciate Curry’s skills, few desire players who play with his looseness and seeming nonchalance. Coaches favor seriousness. Coaches want control. They prefer players for whom they know what to expect, not players likely to do the unexpected. Coaches are conservative. Curry is not.
Personally, pregame warmups are the aspect of coaching I feel I know about the least. I have tried different things, longer, shorter, player-determined, scripted, drill-based, small-sided games, and more. I have done long pregame talks, short pregame talks and no pregame talks. I really struggle to say with any certainty the best approach to prepare a player or team for a game. I imagine the answer is individual; some players prepare best by being loose and playful like Curry. Some likely prepare best through silence. Others through more focus and seriousness. The challenge is to figure out an approach that works the best for each player within a team warmup.
Ultimately, a pregame warmup is not when players develop skills. Pregame warmups are intended to prepare players mentally and physically for the upcoming game, and individuals, especially professionals, know how they prepare the best.
I like the fact that you have trialled several different types of warm-ups and still not found an answer except, 'It's individual.'
The best coaches (in my opinion) think 'What can I do to bring out the best in the players?' rather than 'How can I get the players to do what I want?'
I learned to shoot a hook shot in 6th grade by watching Kareem Abdul Jabbar on TV. We didn’t work on it at practice, nobody taught the footwork, and I didn’t use any drills. Just watching and playing with it in my backyard. It wasn’t structured. It wasn’t work, but it wasn’t “just play” either.
Two years later, my 8th grade coach gave me a book on shooting technique and I did the same thing using ideas from the book and imitating Michael Jordan’s shot in my backyard. I’d never been given any serious formal training in how to shoot a jump shot till that point and actually used to take my free throws underhanded.
Totally “backward” progression in terms of shooting instruction. Still made my high school team. Loving the game and wanting to do something better come first.