Multi-Sport Participation in High School

Originally published in Free Play: A Decade of Writings on Youth Sports.

Ohio State University won the 2015 NCAA Football National Championship, and 42 of its 47 players recruited by Head Coach Urban Meyer played multiple sports in high school. The 2015 Super Bowl featured the Seattle Seahawks with 49 players who played multiple sports in high school on its 53-man roster playing the New England Patriots with 47 multi-sport athletes. Twenty-year-old Nick Krygios qualified for the 2015 Australian Open Quarterfinals several years after representing Australia in age-group basketball competitions.

Parents and youth coaches dismiss these anecdotes because these players could afford to play multiple sports because they were more athletic or more talented than their peers. The evidence suggests otherwise. Neither Super Bowl team featured a player who was considered a 5-star recruit in high school; the starting lineups combined for four 4-star recruits and 40 players who were considered 3-star recruits or lower. Seattle’s starting lineup averaged 2.4 stars, led by quarterback Russell Wilson who was considered a better baseball prospect, and New England’s starting lineup averaged 2.3 stars. Very few of the Super Bowl participants were considered elite talents in high school, and many elite 5-star prospects never made the NFL. The elites at 17 and 18 years old are not the elites at 21 years old and beyond. 

Rather than the more talented and more athletic being able to play multiple sports athletes, the research suggests that these players are more athletic and more talented as adults because they played multiple sports as adolescents. Athletes who participate in multiple sports and specialize later have more success as adults.

The rush to specialize fits the 10,000-hour narrative that was popularized in the last decade and used by coaches to convince parents of the necessity of single-sport participation. The local AAU basketball programs in southern California told parents of recreation players that their children had to play year-round at 8 years old or they would be left behind and never make a high-school team. 

The 10,000-hour rule is a myth: 28% of elite Australian athletes reached elite status within 4 years of taking up the sport for the first time, rather than the required 10 years. Soccer players spent between 2700 hours (Barcelona) and 4700 hours (AJ Auxerre, France) in practice from u8 through u19, less than half of the mythical 10,000 hours.

Rene Wormhoudt, currently the strength & conditioning coach for the Netherlands Football Federation, devised the Athletic Skills Model to create a sequence of development where the child becomes a good mover; the good mover becomes an athlete; and the athlete becomes a specialist. At the Ajax Academy, players compete in soccer and practice for 4400 hours up to u19s, but the academy introduces other sports, and the players engage in multilateral training. They participate in badminton, dodgeball, gymnastics, and judo. Badminton develops footwork and hand-eye coordination. Dodgeball incorporates split vision, hand-eye coordination, and collaboration. Judo develops strength, trust, control, and overcoming fear. These activities accompany the soccer training and add variation, which creates a better learning environment. 

Wormhoudt noted that the club had not lost any players to other sports, but suggested that good movers could excel at other sports such as tennis, basketball, and field hockey because they require athleticism and movement skills as precursors to specialized skill development. This talent transfer has been used to develop elite talents in other sports in many countries, notably Olympic sprinters turned bobsledders Lauryn Williams and Lolo Jones. Talent transfer based on innate abilities and ability developed through playing other sports can accelerate the acquisition of expert performance.13 The sports with the highest transfer to elite performance in another sport were sprinting, basketball, and soccer. 

In total, 48.4% of talent transfers occurred between the ages of 16 and 21, which could indicate an ideal time frame to change sports. When women’s rowing exploded as an NCAA scholarship sport, many new programs recruited basketball players and offered them the opportunity to transfer their athleticism and size. I coached an average high-school basketball player who became an elite college rower. This age window represents the time when many athletes quit sports, either because they are cut from a high-school varsity team or because they complete their high-school careers and are not recruited to play collegiately. Rather than end their competitive careers, these athletes could transition to other opportunities if they develop a solid base of movement skills and athleticism, not just specialized sport skills. When lacrosse was new to the west coast, an NCAA D1 university recruited a friend to be among their first players because he was a very good high-school soccer and baseball player, and the lacrosse coach felt this combination would enable him to transition to lacrosse, extending his competitive career for an additional 4 years. 

Children become good movers, then athletes, then specialists, as Wormhoudt suggested. Multi-sport participation enhances this progression because of the variation in movements and movement skills, as well as various psychosocial benefits, such as soccer players facing their fears in judo. The NCAA National Champions and Super Bowl participants were not able to play multiple sports because they were more talented and more athletic; they became more athletic and more talented when they reached adulthood because they played multiple sports. Nobody remembers the 5-star quarterbacks ranked ahead of Wilson when he graduated from high school, but everyone knows the Super-Bowl winning quarterback. As many have said: You can be elite early, or you can be elite late, but not both. Specializing prior to adolescence to be elite in a sport in adulthood has the opposite effect; the best players are the best athletes who are the best movers, and they develop these skills through multilateral sports participation. 

Jokic, passing and positions

https://twitter.com/HilltopNBA/status/1343789515740102656?s=20

Nikola Jokic may be the best passer in the NBA in 2020-21. He also stands 7-feet tall. For many, these statements are incongruous; short players are supposed to pass the ball well, and tall players dunk.

The same has been said about LeBron James for his entire career. He is a great passer for someone his height.

Why is height considered a constraint on passing skills? For generations, NFL organizations preferred taller quarterbacks because they can see over the offensive and defensive lineman more easily, and are less likely to have a pass deflected at the line of scrimmage. As the speed of the game has increased, teams now prefer more mobile quarterbacks to height, but taller QBs still have the advantage in the pocket to see and throw over the line of scrimmage. Why would taller basketball players not have the same advantage?

Our surprise at the passing skills of players such as LeBron and Jokic is due to our traditional position designations. We organize and evaluate players by these positions: point guards pass, shooting guards shoot, etc. LeBron and Jokic do not fit within the traditional position designations, which is why we have qualifications now: A point-forward or a point-center.

Many of the greatest players in NBA history subverted the position designations. Point guards were supposed to be the smallest players until Magic Johnson; tall players were supposed to play close to the basket until players like Larry Bird, Bill Laimbeer, and Dirk Nowitski. Allen Iverson and Stephen Curry were considered not to be point guards because they shot too much, whereas Draymond Green confounds on both ends, as he is too short to be a center, but too tall to be a playmaker, yet he manages to be both. Similarly, we picture players like Magic, John Stockton, Oscar Robertson, and Steve Nash as the best passers, but every generation has had centers who pass well: Wilt, Bill Walton, Sabonis, Webber and Vlade, and now Jokic.

Despite the fact that many of our best players subverted the traditional position designations, we continue to use them. Why? In a time of positionless basketball, what do position designations offer?

Youth coaches use position designations to simplify the game for players. As coaches complicate the game with more plays, schemes, and strategies, a position allows players to learn only parts of each play or scheme: Their position. Rather than understanding the entire play, they memorize their part. Of course, when the shooting guard is injured, and the coach only has one shooting guard left, as soon as he or she goes to the bench their plays fall apart because nobody knows that part of the play. Several years ago, due to injuries, my “point guard” had to run the “power forward” spot on out-of-bounds plays because she was the only one who knew all of the spots; all of our regular “power forwards” were injured. We could not slide everyone up one position, as we did in our normal offense and defense, because none of the wings knew the plays. Luckily, our point guard had a great basketball intelligence and could fill in anywhere.

Youth teams should not have so many players and such a complicated system that players can learn or memorize only parts of each play. That shouldn’t be the purpose of youth basketball.

However, the greater problem is that positions become constraining or self-limiting. How many times during a game does a coach yell to pass to the point guard to dribble up the court instead of empowering the rebounder to dribble? Essentially, the coach decides that one player is better at dribbling or decision making than the others, so only that one player — called the point guard — is allowed to dribble. This limits the skill development of those not allowed or empowered to dribble.

Therefore, these position designations are used for short-term success — reducing mistakes — not long-term development. The players who manage to overcome these position constraints or designations, however, like LeBron and Jokic, tend to be the best players: A point guard who can shoot, a post who can pass, a smaller player who can defend bigger players in the post, a bigger player who can defend smaller players, or smaller players who rebound well.

If the best players manage to subvert these positional constraints, why do we still develop players using these designations? Why only allow one player to inbound the ball? Why allow only one player to dribble? Why force one player always to stand close to the basket?

Rather than complicating the system and constraining the players, we should embrace positionless basketball and empower all players to play all roles. We should not be shocked by a 7-footer who can pass; we should expect 7-footers to pass because their height should allow them to see the court better than a 6-foot point guard. Obviously, a 6-foot point guard has some advantages in terms of quickness and shiftiness that 7-footers may lack, and just as NFL teams now prefer mobile quarterbacks, the shiftiness of smaller players may prove more beneficial in man situations.

Rather than renaming or qualifying positions — point-forwards and point-centers or shooting-point-guards and pass-first-point-guards — we should have basketball players. We should develop all skills in all youth players not restrict them to the traditional skills of a single archetype. Once players reach the professional level, coaches will establish roles to maximize success, but these roles do not have to be defined by positions. Instead, they should be defined by skills: Run the offense through the playmaker regardless of height, and set screens for the shooter regardless of position, and use the defensive role player to set screens and basket cut to occupy defenders. Allow the skills to determine roles, not some traditional position designations from a bygone era.

Introducing the SABA concept to high-school players

For more information on SABA: The Antifragile Offense, buy the paperback or Kindle.

Learning from players about their own learning

This is one example of a common theme from coaches and trainers who believe in a certain way to develop players and fundamentals. Hardly anyone would question the statement or the philosophy; of course players need to practice layups, and we have been told repeatedly that “repetition is the mother of all learning.”

At some point, however, should we listen to the children? Is there a chance that the children know better? After all, if the children are bored, are they learning and improving? And, if they are not learning and improving, what is the purpose behind a repetitive drill?

.

The picture above is from a presentation on skill development. The paper by Torrents and Balague (2006) found that children learn rapidly, with variety, without many repetitions, and with minimal following of directions.

Compare their descriptions of learning with the tweet. The coach is advocating a lack of variety, a large number of repetitions, and a desire for players to follow directions. Also, it is implied that this learning is not rapid, as one expects that a coach/trainer would not repeat the same thing over and over after it has been mastered.

Who is correct? Do children need to learn to do large number of repetitions of repetitive tasks? Do coaches need to design practices and drills that fit with the way that children learn?

A repetitive layup drill as described is an example of constant block practice: Players practice one version of one skill.

Now, for beginners, constant block practice is recommended because a beginner needs some basic idea of the skill; there are hundreds of ways to throw the ball up and into the basket, but time has shown only a few of these hundreds of potential executions to be reliably effective. Instructions, demonstrations, and constant block practice helps the beginner identify the basic skill executions that are most effective.

However, constant block practice often is not the best practice to promote retention and transfer. Retention is the ability to retain learning from one day to the next, whereas transfer is the ability to perform the learned skill in a different environment; for our concerns, transfer generally means to perform the learned skill in a competitive environment or to take improvements in practice to games.

Random variable practice has been shown to improve retention and transfer. Random variable practice incorporates several skills and different executions of the skill; obviously, this makes the practice more like the environment of a game.

In a game, one does not shoot 20 right-hand layups in a row. Instead, a player shoots a layup, then plays defense, runs the court, passes, dribbles, plays defense again, and then potentially shoots another layup, although it is likely different than the previous layup in some way: angle, defensive pressure, speed, execution (one foot or two foot), etc.

Incidentally, the realities of the game fit more closely with the ways that children learn. Incorporating different skills and different executions of skills increases the variety of movements and decreases the repetitions of specific movements, and makes following specific instructions more difficult.

Therefore, how should we proceed? Is it our job as a coach to teach players to do things that they do not like? Do we need players to embrace tedious, repetitive tasks? Is that imposing an adult mindset or an adult learning model onto children? Is our goal to teach the children to do a skill (layups) or to teach children to accept an adult way of learning (minimize variety, increase repetitions)? Is there a reason children learn new things quickly?

Coaches embrace repetitions. This is how we have taught for years. However, it is not how we have always learned. We used to learn on the playgrounds and playing around with fathers or siblings. We were introduced to sports in playful environments, and when we joined teams, coaches refined those skills. Now, children often are exposed to sports and skills for the first time when they join a team. Does that change how we coach?

Before I joined a team, I could do a layup. I honestly do not remember learning a layup, but I know we started to play basketball on the playground in 2nd grade and could not join a team until 5th grade. I also know that in our practices in 5th or 6th grade, we had to make 20 right-handed layups and 20 left-handed layups in a row as a team.

This was not teaching layups. We could make layups. This was creating a challenge, learning to concentrate, and making layups with a small amount of pressure.

How did I learn to make a layup before joining a team in 5th grade? Probably by watching others, practicing in my front yard, playing at recess and lunch, and more. It was not through drills or by following directions.

Is that the best way? Should we use repetitions to quicken the learning process? Or, do these drills and repetitions actually lengthen the learning process because children do not learn when they lack motivation due to boredom?

Rather than doing things our adult way, when should we learn from the behaviors and motivations of the children?

The Competitive Cauldron

More information about the competitive cauldron is available in The 21st Century Basketball Practice, which is available as a paperback and a Kindle. Also, below are three older articles that introduce the concept and its use in my practices with high-school players.

Planning a practice with the competitive cauldron

Why is the coach always right?

Tracking wins and losses in practice

The Rationale for Blitz Basketball

Blitz Basketball is available as a paperback or a Kindle.

The Goofy Foot Layup, language, and motor control

Television analysts repeatedly refer to layups as “wrong foot” or “wrong hand”. Most analysts are old, relatively speaking, and when they were taught to play basketball, everyone agreed that there were wrong ways to execute skills and right ways to execute skills.

One-handed passes were wrong.

Jumping to pass was wrong.

Crossing one’s feet on defense was wrong.

Using the inside hand on a layup was wrong.

Jumping off the same-side foot as the shooting hand was wrong.

None of these skills is wrong, and, in fact, many coaches now actively teach these executions to develop better and more skilled players. Despite their acceptance in the modern game, many refer to these skills as “wrong”, even when promoting them.

Language matters. Why would a coach teach something called “wrong foot” or “wrong hand”? Wrong is defined as “not correct.” What does a player think when being asked to practice something that is not correct? If the player accepts inside-hand layups or goofy-foot layups, as most do today, how does the coach know what he or she means when he or she says “wrong”?

Many coaches dismiss this argument as semantics.

Watch a practice with beginners. Often, when introducing layups, players use a goofy-foot approach: When shooting a right-handed layup, they jump off their right foot.

In a traditional view, this is wrong; the “correct” layup is to jump off the inside (left) foot to shoot with the outside (right) hand. When someone says “layup”, this is what we picture, and any other shot referenced as a layup requires a modifier: two-foot layup, inside-hand layup, reverse layup, etc.

Because a traditional view says that players must use their inside foot to shoot with their outside hand, the coach stops and corrects the players. When we call a layup a “wrong-footed layup”, this is exactly what we mean. It needs to be corrected. Over and over, we stop players who may be making layups jumping off their same-sided foot (right foot for a right-handed layup), and tell them that despite the success, they executed incorrectly and must change.

The irony, of course, is that after spending hours and hours to teach the “correct” layup, if players last long enough in the competitive stream, they will reach a level where their coach teaches the “wrong-foot layup”: The layup that they once executed naturally. The further irony is the this natural movement is no longer natural; players practice the traditional layup so much that they lose the ability to shoot the goofy-foot layup and must re-learn their natural motions.

This is the problem with language. When we label the layup, “wrong”, we automatically correct this behavior in children. However, we eventually teach this skill, and highlight the shots, so how can it be wrong? Why do we frustrate children who are beginning to play basketball and learning new skills by telling them that their initial approaches, which are successful in terms of making the shot, are wrong because they did not perform the skill like the coach wants?

Furthermore, there is a reason that children tend to shoot goofy-foot layups.

The initial movements that children learn — crawling, skipping, walking, running — use a contralateral movement pattern: I lift my right arm, and my left leg. We see this contralateral pattern when children shoot layups initially: they jump off their right foot and lift their left knee and right hand to shoot. This is not wrong and need not be corrected initially.

Put yourself into the child’s shoes. To shoot a traditional layup, the child must change his or her basic coordination, while learning to manipulate a basketball (which often is too big) to shoot at a target that is often too high. We ask children to learn several new things at once. Do we start ball handling by asking players to make around-the-back moves on the move or do we start by learning to bounce the ball, then bounce the ball with movement, etc.?

Many coaches argue that a goofy-foot layup is “wrong” because it is not natural. If that is, in fact, true, why do so many children use a goofy-foot layup when they initially start? Without prompting, they use a goofy-foot finish; they have to be instructed, and practice repeatedly, to use a “traditional” layup. How does that make the traditional layup “more natural”?

A goofy-foot layup is not wrong, and for most children, it is the initial natural movement because it fits more closely with their previously-learned skills and coordination. Rather than start with constant corrections to move to the “traditional layup”, why not allow players to start with success? Encourage them to shoot in the manner of their choosing in an effort to make the shot. After all, we judge the “correctness” of a professional’s shot by its outcome; why hold beginners to a more difficult standard of making the shot AND using a specific technique? As players progress, coaches can introduce other layups and diversify the players’ skills.

Instead, we drill the traditional layup to such an extent that many middle-school and high-school basketball players can be differentiated from other athletes by their inability to skip. Many older basketball players who have been instructed in the proper layup technique change their skipping pattern to match their layup pattern: Rather than skipping by driving their left knee and right arm together, they drive their right knee and right arm. They have adopted a sport-specific pattern to such a degree that they have lost their initial coordination patterns.

This, of course, is why older players struggle to re-adopt the goofy-foot layup that initially came naturally. They must re-learn basic contralateral patterning. All because we are adamant that players start with one traditional layup, which differs from their previously-learned patterns and requires many repetitions, feedback, and corrections.

Rather than building on success, we make the initial learning harder and more frustrating, and later when we deem the goofy-foot layup to be technically- and strategically-appropriate, that learning becomes harder and more frustrating. All because we have a traditional view of what a “correct” layup looks like and refer to an important skill as “wrong”.

If a coach is adamant that jumping off the right foot to shoot a right-handed layup is wrong, the coach should not teach the layup. However, as Stephen Curry, Kyrie Irving, and others have shown, this would be limiting the players, and eliminating one potential weapon from their skill set.

SABA vs Zones

I saw this tweet with a play from the Clippers’ scrimmage, and immediately thought “that should have been a lob for a dunk”. I read the comments, and people appeared to think it was good defense.

The problem starts as the player receives the first pass over half-court.

This picture occurs just before the ball is passed to the player high on the right sideline.

At the start, the spacing is fine. Most high school teams teach to flash a player to the middle against the 1-2-2, and that would not be wrong. However, the current spacing creates an immediate 2v1 in the yellow circle above. Quick ball movement should be able to exploit this advantage.

This image is the instant that the player receives the pass.

Now, the spacing creates a problem. Why is the player circled above standing in the midrange? His positioning eliminates a driving lane for the player with the ball, and he is unprepared to shoot a three-pointer on the catch. If he is not a shooter, he should be positioned elsewhere, potentially in the dunker’s spot with his shoulders squared to the ball. This would create a 2v1 with the player circled below.

This image is then the attacker with the ball faces the basket.

Now, for some reason, our shooter in the corner still is not behind the three-point line. Despite this, the baseline defender is sprinting out toward him. What is the opposite post, circled above, doing? Does he not like to score? He is actually backing away from the basket area that is currently being vacated with no defender sprinting to take away the space. At this instant, there should be a lob for a dunk. The next best alternative is a flash to the ball side to take away the weak side help for a catch and finish at the rim. To end up with the next frame instead of the ball at the rim is terrible execution.

After looking to the basket, he looks away and starts to dribble middle as the original passer basket cuts because he is denied.

The attacker with the ball turns away from the basket and still no defender has covered the open space in yellow. Fortunately for the defense, the baseline attacker has backed further away from the basket, presumably because he hates offense. An adept passer could throw a little pocket pass to the point guard cutting because he has a step and there is no help defense, but if he was unwilling to throw the lob to an open player, I imagine he is not equipped to throw the pocket pass right there.

Despite giving up the big advantage (lob), the cut attracts the attention of two players, which means that the offense still has a 2v1 advantage in green with a quick ball reversal.

Next dribble.

Instead, he dribbles again, and defenders match up. At this point, the advantage is gone, and the offense relies on the attacker to make an individual move to create a shot.

The shot

With the lack of spacing — neither weak side player is outside the three-point line, the baseline strong side has lifted from the corner, and the fifth player apparently gave up and ran back on defense — the help defense rotates and forces a bad, contested shot.

Again, most see good defense because the offense attempted a bad shot. However, the offense forfeited multiple advantages. When the player on the right wing receives the pass, the ball stopped. When he stopped the ball, the defense could recover and match up.

The ball stopped largely because the offense was spaced poorly on the strong side — too far out to create the 2v1 on the baseline, but not outside the three-point line — and the opposite baseline attacker, who should have scored, decided that he did not want to play on that possession and took himself out of the play.

The defense rotated fairly well, as these movements occurred in fractions of a second, but that is the speed of play at the NBA level. Attackers have to recognize openings immediately, or preferably anticipate the openings, because of the speed of the game. Once the attacker on the right wing holds the ball, they lose the big advantage. Once he takes the second dribble, they lose the small 2v1 advantage on the weak side.

This is a major reason that zones work at all levels. Players catch and hold and allow the defense to rotate instead of attacking on the catch like we teach against player-to-player defense. If he caught and ripped to the basket, he creates a kickback to his teammate in the corner or a 2v1 with the opposite baseline and the baseline defender. If he passes immediately, he likely creates a dunk for his teammate on the baseline. Instead, he holds the ball, the defense moves quickly, and the advantages quickly disappear. Good defense, but the offense allowed it by forfeiting its advantages and holding the ball.

Understanding a coach’s on-court values

The tweet above has been simplified or misunderstood; there are two interpretations, not just one. The obvious point is to recruit skill and shooting. The other is that when a coach recruits athleticism over skill, presumably because the coach believes he/she can develop skills, it is not the players’ fault if those skills have not been developed after two years.

Those who recruit athleticism and toughness rather than skill and shooting, must have a plan to develop skills and shooting or to scheme around the deficiencies. Similarly, those who recruit skills and shooting ahead of athleticism and toughness must have a plan to develop athleticism or scheme around any athletic deficiencies. One recruiting philosophy is not necessarily right, although I have my preference, but the absence of a plan to develop or scheme around deficiencies leads to many recruiting mistakes and poor fits, and these poor fits often end up in the transfer portal by choice or by the coach pushing them out to sign a player who fits better.

The decision to transfer often is not the mistake or the bad decision; instead, it results from a poor original decision. Players decide poorly because they are not truthful with themselves about the things that really matter to them, probably because they are 18 years old and not entirely aware of those things. Coaches make bad decisions, often because they are not truthful with themselves about the things that are important to them.

The tweet was really about awareness.

Does the coach recruit for a specific style? Does the coach collect the most talented players possible and hope to figure out a system? Does the coach know which player types that he/she favors? Does the recruiting philosophy match the allocation of minutes?

I coached a player who attempted nearly 8 three-point field goals per game. A program that attempted 15.13 3FGA/G recruited her, and told her that they wanted to shoot more three-pointers in the next season. Despite signing one of the nation’s best shooters and stating a commitment to shoot more three-pointers, they averaged 15.03 3FGA/G. They actually shot fewer three-pointers per game!

The player listened to the coach’s sales pitch, not her actions. The coach believed that she would change her style of play.

Coaches evaluate their seasons and imagine ways to improve. Most tend to be proactive and aggressive: Play faster, shoot more, play more aggressive defense. When the season starts, they revert to their more conservative personality and core beliefs. Change is hard, and when you perceive your job to be on the line, change is harder.

Players who they signed during their enthusiasm for change may not fit with their style of play. The lack of fit is not anyone’s fault other than a lack of awareness: The player ignored the signs that the coach did not value three-point shooting, and the coach lacked the awareness of her own philosophy. The coach may have believed with all of her heart that she would change, but it rarely happens.

Problems also occur when coaches overrate their ability to develop skills. I am confident in my ability to develop players’ skills, and especially shooting, and have a significant track record to support this belief. Everything from our system of play to our communication style to our practice schedule to our drill design is set up around skill development. That being said, I recruit shooters and skills first, and we scheme around players who cannot shoot.

Whereas I imagine that every coach and every program believes that they develop skills and emphasize skill development, few environments that I have seen do as they say. For example, the coach below has been known for 20 years for skill development. But, how much of what is described actually occurs?

There is nothing wrong with the drill, and every coach in the country uses similar drills. However, does the drill integrate passing and reads? The only player pass is the initial one which is a pass to a stationary, undefended coach. Does the drill involve reads? It is hard to tell because of the short clip, but based on what we can see, not really. It sure looks like the defense is scripted. When the defense is scripted, do the offensive players make reads? Off the DHO where the two players make different moves/shots, there is no defense; who do they read? Finally, is this game-like? There is no live defense, and only one player in the drill, so clearly a designated shooter. Is that game-like?

To reiterate, this is not a bad drill, and this is common at nearly every college program. However, I believe many coaches overrate their ability to develop incoming players’ skills, which leads to transfers when players do not develop into the players that coaches imagined, because these are not game-like drills. Now, with practice restrictions and individual workouts, these may be the best drills possible. This may be a great, efficient practice. However, that does not make the drills game-like, and as long as we view these drills as game-like skill development drills, we overrate the effect that we have on our players’ skill development.

The SABA Offensive Philosophy

SABA is more of a philosophy of offensive basketball than it is a specific system. Consequently, the philosophy can be applied to any system, although it may change the system’s precise goals and execution. To learn more about the specifics of SABA, please see SABA: The Antifragile Offense, available as a Kindle or a paperback.

SABA is based on the idea that an offensive possession has four possible states: Disadvantage (defensive advantage), neutral, small advantage and big advantage.

A disadvantage is when the defense aggressively pursues a steal; the basic principles of attack do not change if this attempt is a full-court diamond press, a half-court 1-3-3 or trapping a high on-ball screen. Consequently, we do not have numerous full-court and half-court press breaks. In fact, we do not have a press break; we just have proper spacing in the full-court and half-court, and proper spacing when a teammate is trapped.

Our offensive objective is to create a big advantage; for us, a big advantage is an open layup or a catch-and-shoot three-pointer for one of our 37+% shooters. When we face a disadvantage, our goal is to create the big advantage immediately, as beating a trap immediately takes out two defenders, creating a numerical advantage.

In transition, the offense has a small advantage because the defense is not set; depending on the numbered advantage, the offense may start with a big advantage (2v1, 4v2), but at minimum, it has a small advantage. Our objective is to maintain and extend this advantage rather than allowing the defense to recover and set up.

When the defense is set, and the position starts from neutral, the offense uses an action to create its advantage. Occasionally, the action works perfectly, and the team moves directly from neutral to a big advantage. In a traditional view, this is the “play” working.

The action always creates an advantage, even when the big advantage is not available immediately. If the defense switches to prevent a layup, now the offense has created two mismatches, which is a small advantage. When a player catches without sufficient room to shoot, but with a defender closing out, she has a small advantage; we want to keep the defense in rotations until we create the big advantage (desired shot).

Occasionally, whether due to the defense or the shot clock, the offense does not extend the advantage and instead uses the small advantage to create its shot. Not every possession ends with an open layup or a wide open catch and shoot three-pointer.

Next Page »

  • What Is A Playmaker?

    Who decided that a point guard has to be small? More importantly, what is a point guard? We expect a point guard to be a leader and have a high basketball I.Q. Why don’t we expect or challenge all players to develop this game awareness? Why rely on only one player? Read more →
  • The PBDL Concept

    English soccer academies wait until players are 11 to play full 11v11 soccer; in Italy, youth basketball players participate in skill-oriented clinics at 6-years-old, but start competitive games at 12. In the United States, kids play 5v5 full court games and compete for national championships when they are 8-years-old.

    Read more →

  • Starting A PBDL

    The PBDL emphasizes learning and development. Presently, players and parents have numerous recreation options - leagues based on fun and equal participation, typically for beginners - and numerous competitive opportunities - teams focused on strategy, game preparation and winning. There are few true development leagues - until now.

    Read more →