COACHBOBWALSH.com
BLOG.COACHBOBWALSH.COM
Scoring
I was asked in a radio interview I did on Saturday about some of the discussed rules changes in college basketball, and specifically about changing the shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds. The rule change - which did not get passed - was brought about to hopefully increase scoring in college basketball by creating more possessions. But a 5 second difference in the shot clock isn't going to increase scoring significantly.
Eliminating 5 seconds off the shot clock is a short term solution to a long term problem. There are many reasons why scoring is down in college basketball. First of all, the game has become so much more physical and officials are letting the defense get away with all kinds of contact. I watched the Knicks-Pacers game 6 on Saturday night and the amount of physical play being allowed in the game is just absurd. I know the NBA is a completely different game, but everything trickles down from that league. Players and coaches watch that league and adopt what they can, and the physical style of basketball has become normal in our country. I'd love to see a European group of officials come and officiate some NBA games for a bit - even in the pre-season. As soon as you touch someone in the European game the whistle blows. You can't obstruct any kind of movement the offense wants to make. It would be great to watch NBA players have to adapt to that kind of officiating where freedom of movement is really important.
Basketball skill is much more valued in the European game than it is here. And this is really the long-term problem that needs to be addressed if we want to bring more points back to our game. We don't value skill. We value athleticism and physical ability. Again, it starts with the NBA. But it's similar at the college level, and it gets down to high school and the grassroots level. European youth teams put in a tremendous amount of work on skills during practice and play 1 game per week. Our young kids do nothing but play games. And when we go and evaluate high school and AAU games, we want to see athleticism. We want to see guys run and jump, guys that are physically gifted. We place tremendous value on that. We figure we can teach them the skills to play if they have great natural ability. We always have questions about skill guys.
The first thing we do with a skill guy when we are evaluating is ask "Is he quick enough?" or "Is he athletic enough?" We rarely ask if a great athlete is skilled enough or a good enough basketball player. And in some ways that is OK. There is value in athleticism, and we've proven that our NBA players are the best players in the world. But the rest of the world is certainly a lot closer to us than they used to be. There is nothing wrong with valuing athleticism, but we have to recognize what it does to the game. Great athletes don't need great skills to be great defenders. It's a way for everyone to contribute, regardless of the skill set. If the majority of the players on the floor are great athletes but aren't great skill players you have more guys who can prevent baskets than can create them. So many coaches want to get out and run, and athletes allow them to do that. But when they can't get easy baskets, they don't have the skills to score consistently.
Minor rule changes like the shot clock aren't going to have a big effect on scoring. If we make the game less physical by empowering the officials to call all of the contact the offense will have a lot more freedom to operate. But overall we have to start valuing skill more at all levels. At the lower levels we need a lot more time dedicated to practicing and less time playing games. Embracing the value of skills over athleticism will change the long-term approach and eventually bring more scoring back to the game.
Dynamic Leadership Academy at RIC June 10th-11th
Please get in touch with me at rwalsh@ric.edu f you are interested. Spots are filling up quickly and it is shaping up to be a great event.
Graduation Speech
This is part of a graduation speech that David Foster Wallace gave at Kenyon College in 2005. A very cool, smart message. Video takes about 10 minutes but when you have some time to think, play it.
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/05/09/this-is-water-glossary/?utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffereb3d7
"The freedom of real education is you get to constantly decide what has meaning and what doesn't. That is real freedom. That is being educated."
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/05/09/this-is-water-glossary/?utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffereb3d7
"The freedom of real education is you get to constantly decide what has meaning and what doesn't. That is real freedom. That is being educated."
What Is Coaching?
"Coaching is not what you know. It's what you can get your players to do on the court."
- Stan Van Gundy
- Stan Van Gundy
Individual Meetings
It's always amazing how much I learn when I hold individual meetings with my players. I learn more about how to coach my team during one on one conversations than I do in any practice, game or by watching film.
This year in our post-season meetings I had one player who really hasn't played as much as he wants to thank me for the way we hold our guys accountable. He said that even though they don't always appreciate it right away, he realizes what it does for them long-term and it means a lot to him. It meant a lot to hear that, especially from someone who hasn't gotten the court time he wants. I had no idea he felt that way or was that bought in to our program. Another player told me when I took him out of the line-up this year that he felt like I was blaming him for the way our team was practicing at that point. Even though we spoke about it directly when I made the move and I explained to him clearly why I was doing it - we just needed to shake things up and get more energy in the starting line-up. And we made two changes, not just one. But he still felt like he was being blamed, and it affected the way he played for a few weeks. I've had other kids tell me that they really felt more confident when they were given a chance to start, and that made a big difference for them. I had one kid tell me he wasn't sure what position he was supposed to play, even though we never even talk about positions or roles on the court. I had no idea he was thinking that. I learned a great deal just by talking to my players.
Phil Jackson used to occasionally meet the Lakers at the door to the arena before a practice or a shoot around to get a feel for how they were doing mentally that day. Once they got into the locker room, changed, and got out on the practice floor they were supposed to block out any issues and be ready to play, even though that's not always easy. Any issues that are affecting them are likely left in the locker room, but it doesn't mean they aren't real. Jackson wanted to know what might be going on in their real life that could affect the way they played or practice, so he met them at the door just to get a read for the pulse of his team. What was going on in his players heads was important to him.
Having individual conversations with your guys isn't always easy. If you allow them to speak their minds, you may learn some things that aren't comfortable. You bring up situations that you may have to address, whether they are right or wrong about how they feel. Once you ask them you can no longer act like the issue isn't there. You have to deal with it, and that's not always easy.
But it's important. The longer I coach, the more I realize how much I learn from my players. Knowing what is going on in their minds is important to me and to our team, and the best way to get that is to listen to them. I learn more about how to coach my team from my individual meetings than I do from any other aspect of my program.
Hot Hands
Interesting stuff from Gretchen Reynolds in her New York Times blog on different studies done on the hot hand in sports.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/are-hot-hands-in-sports-for-real/?smid=tw-share
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/are-hot-hands-in-sports-for-real/?smid=tw-share
Game 7
I was watching the Rangers-Capitals game 7 last night and they interviewed Rangers coach John Tortorella on the bench. His teams have had some success in game 7s and the question was about his "magic" in game 7s. His answer was simple. "There is no magic. We know how to play. We just let our guys play."
In college basketball we don't have game 7s, but the approach to a big game is really interesting to think about. We do play games with our season on the line. In that scenario the urge to "overcoach" is a real one. You want to make absolutely sure everything is covered, every angle has been thought about and your team is prepared for every situation. The other side is the approach John Tortorella spoke about. To keep them relaxed and just let them play. Most coaches probably wrestle with both sides before a big game - how to make sure they are prepared to win and relaxed and comfortable to "just play" at the same time.
We have played in 7 straight Little East Championship Games. To be fair, probably only 3 of them were with our season on the line. In 4 of the 7 (including the last 2 years) we had done enough to get into the NCAA Tournament regardless of whether we won or lost (which brings up another coaching challenge - the championship game that isn't a must win for your team, when you've already had a great year). But regardless of whether it is win or go home, a championship game or just a huge regular season game, a big game is a big game. What is the best way to approach it?
The conference title game is an interesting scenario for us as it is for many leagues in college basketball because it's played in a back-to-back scenario. We play our conference semi-finals on a Friday night and our championship game on a Saturday afternoon. Usually the only time all year, until we get to the NCAA Tournament, that we play on back-to-back nights. So the internal battle for a coach is at full tilt - you are anxious to make sure you cover everything you can about your opponent, yet there is so little time that you can't really do much more to get ready. This is a team you've played twice already so you obviously know what they are about. But that also creates scenarios that you have handled well against them and some that you haven't handled very well. It gives you plenty of stuff to think about. The battle between keeping your guys from thinking too much and how you are going to handle a double-high ball screen in a late-clock situation is always running through your head on championship Saturday.
One of the keys is to be yourself. If you are a team that really grinds out what your opponent does and makes specific adjustments based on that, you should continue with that approach. If your team is used to knowing what your opponent calls their baseline out of bounds plays, they are going to expect you to give them the calls. If you normally just have a brief walk-through and don't get too specific on your opponent, you should stick with that. If you change things on the day of the game, your kids will pick it up immediately. If you try and act too relaxed or take too casual of an approach to keep your kids loose, they'll know it's fake. Stay with the approach that got you to the game in the first place.
A second key is to read the pulse of your team. Most big games are played late in the year and you've been through a long season together. If you are invested in your guys and trust has been built up, you should have a really good feel for what buttons to push. But this isn't always easy. In my second year we played Keene State in the LEC Title game at our place after Keene had beaten us twice during the regular season. It was the first time RIC had ever appeared in the LEC Title game. We had played a really tough semi-final the night before against UMass-Dartmouth. I felt a ton of pressure for that team to finish it off and win a championship because it would have been really disappointing to lose on our home floor and get beat by the same team 3 times. We also felt like we needed to win (even though we probably didn't) to get into the NCAA Tournament. My sense of the pulse of our team from that day was there was too much pressure on us. So the first thing I said to them before the game was "We are in the NCAA Tournament. That's done. We don't have to worry about that." I was hoping to loosen them up to just play. But I didn't sense a lot of energy in the room. I remembered thinking when we took the floor that we were out of gas. We warmed up without a lot of energy and just didn't seem to have enough left in the tank. But we came out and played great, and won going away. The pulse of your team can be hard to read. It's possible that I had correctly read and then mis-read the pulse of my team at the same time.
Another thing to think about is who your team is - have they lived up to expectations? Are they the favorite or the underdog? It's important to know not only who they are, but who they think they are. In what scenarios have they played their best? I've had teams that were clearly the most talented team in our league and had won the league but lost some games we shouldn't have along the way. We didn't bring it every night and sometimes lacked focus. We were in a position where we needed to win the championship game to keep playing. Those teams I felt needed to be challenged the day of the championship game. The approach was more like "We think we are the best team? We carry ourselves like we are. Well we have to go and prove it. If they beat us today, we can't say that." I wanted those teams to feel the pressure of a championship game because I felt they responded better to that scenario. Knowing who your team is and what they think about themselves is very important to handling a big game.
Preparing for a huge game is such an exciting challenge, but there isn't one right way to go about it. There are many different approaches you can take. You have to be yourself, you have to read the pulse of your team at that time, and you have to know who they really are and what is going on in their head. That will give you the best feel for how to approach your game 7.
In college basketball we don't have game 7s, but the approach to a big game is really interesting to think about. We do play games with our season on the line. In that scenario the urge to "overcoach" is a real one. You want to make absolutely sure everything is covered, every angle has been thought about and your team is prepared for every situation. The other side is the approach John Tortorella spoke about. To keep them relaxed and just let them play. Most coaches probably wrestle with both sides before a big game - how to make sure they are prepared to win and relaxed and comfortable to "just play" at the same time.
We have played in 7 straight Little East Championship Games. To be fair, probably only 3 of them were with our season on the line. In 4 of the 7 (including the last 2 years) we had done enough to get into the NCAA Tournament regardless of whether we won or lost (which brings up another coaching challenge - the championship game that isn't a must win for your team, when you've already had a great year). But regardless of whether it is win or go home, a championship game or just a huge regular season game, a big game is a big game. What is the best way to approach it?
The conference title game is an interesting scenario for us as it is for many leagues in college basketball because it's played in a back-to-back scenario. We play our conference semi-finals on a Friday night and our championship game on a Saturday afternoon. Usually the only time all year, until we get to the NCAA Tournament, that we play on back-to-back nights. So the internal battle for a coach is at full tilt - you are anxious to make sure you cover everything you can about your opponent, yet there is so little time that you can't really do much more to get ready. This is a team you've played twice already so you obviously know what they are about. But that also creates scenarios that you have handled well against them and some that you haven't handled very well. It gives you plenty of stuff to think about. The battle between keeping your guys from thinking too much and how you are going to handle a double-high ball screen in a late-clock situation is always running through your head on championship Saturday.
One of the keys is to be yourself. If you are a team that really grinds out what your opponent does and makes specific adjustments based on that, you should continue with that approach. If your team is used to knowing what your opponent calls their baseline out of bounds plays, they are going to expect you to give them the calls. If you normally just have a brief walk-through and don't get too specific on your opponent, you should stick with that. If you change things on the day of the game, your kids will pick it up immediately. If you try and act too relaxed or take too casual of an approach to keep your kids loose, they'll know it's fake. Stay with the approach that got you to the game in the first place.
A second key is to read the pulse of your team. Most big games are played late in the year and you've been through a long season together. If you are invested in your guys and trust has been built up, you should have a really good feel for what buttons to push. But this isn't always easy. In my second year we played Keene State in the LEC Title game at our place after Keene had beaten us twice during the regular season. It was the first time RIC had ever appeared in the LEC Title game. We had played a really tough semi-final the night before against UMass-Dartmouth. I felt a ton of pressure for that team to finish it off and win a championship because it would have been really disappointing to lose on our home floor and get beat by the same team 3 times. We also felt like we needed to win (even though we probably didn't) to get into the NCAA Tournament. My sense of the pulse of our team from that day was there was too much pressure on us. So the first thing I said to them before the game was "We are in the NCAA Tournament. That's done. We don't have to worry about that." I was hoping to loosen them up to just play. But I didn't sense a lot of energy in the room. I remembered thinking when we took the floor that we were out of gas. We warmed up without a lot of energy and just didn't seem to have enough left in the tank. But we came out and played great, and won going away. The pulse of your team can be hard to read. It's possible that I had correctly read and then mis-read the pulse of my team at the same time.
Another thing to think about is who your team is - have they lived up to expectations? Are they the favorite or the underdog? It's important to know not only who they are, but who they think they are. In what scenarios have they played their best? I've had teams that were clearly the most talented team in our league and had won the league but lost some games we shouldn't have along the way. We didn't bring it every night and sometimes lacked focus. We were in a position where we needed to win the championship game to keep playing. Those teams I felt needed to be challenged the day of the championship game. The approach was more like "We think we are the best team? We carry ourselves like we are. Well we have to go and prove it. If they beat us today, we can't say that." I wanted those teams to feel the pressure of a championship game because I felt they responded better to that scenario. Knowing who your team is and what they think about themselves is very important to handling a big game.
Preparing for a huge game is such an exciting challenge, but there isn't one right way to go about it. There are many different approaches you can take. You have to be yourself, you have to read the pulse of your team at that time, and you have to know who they really are and what is going on in their head. That will give you the best feel for how to approach your game 7.
Pop And The Spurs
Some great stuff from a recent Jack McCallum article on Gregg Popovich and the Spurs in Sports Illustrated.
"Okay, watch what they do here on defense against Oklahoma City," says Kings assistant Jim Eyen. "It's simple, but they do it every time. You can see how much Parker is shading Westbrook to the sideline. That's where there defense starts. They take you where they want you to go so they can load up. And once the ball is on the sideline they don't make it easy for you to reverse it. You almost never go one-on-one against them. You're going one-on-five."
"And look at the other defenders. Their eyes are on that ball."
It's not that the Spurs do anything magical. It's just that they do whatever they do consistently, from game to game, year to year, decade to decade. "The first thing you think about with them is that they're well-drilled," says Eyen. "You know you have college teams, Kansas and Duke, that play a certain way? The NBA versions is the Spurs. They are as close to a program as you have in the league."
By all accounts the coach revels in an environment of swirling opinions. "The one way you will not make it here," says top assistant Mike Budenholzer, "is to be a yes man."
Tony Parker says "You can talk to Pop. A lot of coaches you can't."
"Yes, we're disciplined with what we do," says Pop. "But that's not enough. Relationships with people are what it's all about. You have to make players realize you care about them. And they have to care about each other and be interested in each other. They start to feel a responsibility to each other. Then they want to do for each other."
When asked about innovation Pop cut McCallum off.
"Oh, hell, I don't know anything about innovation. Here is my innovation. I drafted Tim Duncan. Okay? End of story."
Dynamic Leadership Academy - June 10th-11th
Very excited about the feedback we have gotten so far. Spots are starting to fill up faster than we anticipated. A great opportunity for coaches to develop and refine their own leadership style.
Can't Win With Him
Be careful of labeling guys as "hard to win with" or guys you "can't win with." We do it all of the time with professional athletes, but as coaches you can fall into that trap when you are recruiting or evaluating your own players. It's a defense mechanism for coaches. If you have a player on your team who you "can't win with," it takes the responsibility off the coach. There is nothing more I could have done, he's just a guy you can't win with. It's not my fault.
Think about the number of professional athletes who had some type of "never going to win with him" label at one point. Phil Mickelson was never going to win a major. Alex Rodriguez would never be on a World Series winner. Lebron. Remember what everyone was saying about Lebron? How dumb is that going to look in 10 years? In Cleveland Lebron was never going to get his team over the hump because he didn't have what it takes, the right mentality, the clutch gene, whatever garbage we could come up with. Now that Lebron has won, the narrative of those Cleveland teams is how awful the supporting cast around Lebron was and how impressive it was that he even got them to the Finals.
But Lebron only won after he surrounded himself with great players! Yes, I realize that, and that is my point. Winning and losing is much more of a team thing than it is an individual thing - unless you're talking tennis or golf - but we associate winning or losing with individual players in all sports. We label players as winners and losers based on the results of their team even though winning and losing is really about the team. There are so many factors that go into winning and losing but we are quick to put most of the focus on one or two individuals. And we say those guys aren't winners, or we can't win with them. Until they do win. And then we move on to someone else.
What type of player comes to mind when you think about a winner? Is it Dennis Rodman? Ron Artest? Or is it a guy like Karl Malone, or maybe John Stockton? Look only at the individual and pick the guys you would consider winners based on how they play, how they act, and the type of teammate they are. Rodman and Artest would fit a lot of people's definitions of "hard to win with" wouldn't they? Except they won. "Hard to win with" is generally reserved for the guy who is considered selfish, a little bit out of control, not team-oriented. But then you look at championship teams and you can find a lot of those guys on them. Think about Rajon Rondo if he played for the Bobcats. Wouldn't he be hard to win with? Kevin Garnett got killed in Minnesota for never winning in the playoffs, and then he got traded to the Celtics. Did he learn how to be a winner, or did he just join a better team? And think about a guy like Nate Robinson. Doesn't he fit the mold of the talented, wild, hard-to-control selfish hard to win with guy? But then you look at the Bulls, and they are winning more than anyone expected them to, and Nate Robinson is a huge part of it.
You hear that narrative a lot with Carmelo Anthony and J.R. Smith of the Knicks. That you can't win with them. Their playoff track record is cited. J.R. Smith has been on 7 straight playoff teams and been on 5 teams that have won 50 games in his 9 years in the league. He's been on a team that went to the Western Conference Finals, and his teams have won 55% of their games in his career, despite being drafted by one of the worst teams in NBA history. You may not like the way he plays, but it's tough to say he's "hard to win with." The teams that he's on always seem to win at a pretty good clip. Is it possible that his teams lost in the playoffs - kind of like Garnett's T'Wolves teams - because they weren't as good as the other teams?
I'm not a fan at all of the winner, loser or "hard to win with" labels. I think it is something we assign to players that we don't like. If you don't like a kid because of how he plays and he won't fit in to what you are trying to do, by all means stay away from him. But that doesn't mean he is hard to win with. You don't like him, he doesn't fit your program, and that is fine. But we label guys as losers to fit our own narrative - even guys who are on teams that actually win.
We've had a lot of success with kids at RIC that other coaches told me they wouldn't touch because they were hard to win with. You give them a chance to be themselves and see how they fit in with what you want to do. You may not like them or they may not fit in, and that's fine. But if you label them as a guy who you can't win with, you won't give him a chance to show you what he can do.
Think closely about it the next time you hear someone talk about a player in terms of winning and losing. Take a look at whether or not their teams actually win or lose. I think you'll be surprised how much some of these guys you can't win with can help you win.
Think about the number of professional athletes who had some type of "never going to win with him" label at one point. Phil Mickelson was never going to win a major. Alex Rodriguez would never be on a World Series winner. Lebron. Remember what everyone was saying about Lebron? How dumb is that going to look in 10 years? In Cleveland Lebron was never going to get his team over the hump because he didn't have what it takes, the right mentality, the clutch gene, whatever garbage we could come up with. Now that Lebron has won, the narrative of those Cleveland teams is how awful the supporting cast around Lebron was and how impressive it was that he even got them to the Finals.
But Lebron only won after he surrounded himself with great players! Yes, I realize that, and that is my point. Winning and losing is much more of a team thing than it is an individual thing - unless you're talking tennis or golf - but we associate winning or losing with individual players in all sports. We label players as winners and losers based on the results of their team even though winning and losing is really about the team. There are so many factors that go into winning and losing but we are quick to put most of the focus on one or two individuals. And we say those guys aren't winners, or we can't win with them. Until they do win. And then we move on to someone else.
What type of player comes to mind when you think about a winner? Is it Dennis Rodman? Ron Artest? Or is it a guy like Karl Malone, or maybe John Stockton? Look only at the individual and pick the guys you would consider winners based on how they play, how they act, and the type of teammate they are. Rodman and Artest would fit a lot of people's definitions of "hard to win with" wouldn't they? Except they won. "Hard to win with" is generally reserved for the guy who is considered selfish, a little bit out of control, not team-oriented. But then you look at championship teams and you can find a lot of those guys on them. Think about Rajon Rondo if he played for the Bobcats. Wouldn't he be hard to win with? Kevin Garnett got killed in Minnesota for never winning in the playoffs, and then he got traded to the Celtics. Did he learn how to be a winner, or did he just join a better team? And think about a guy like Nate Robinson. Doesn't he fit the mold of the talented, wild, hard-to-control selfish hard to win with guy? But then you look at the Bulls, and they are winning more than anyone expected them to, and Nate Robinson is a huge part of it.
You hear that narrative a lot with Carmelo Anthony and J.R. Smith of the Knicks. That you can't win with them. Their playoff track record is cited. J.R. Smith has been on 7 straight playoff teams and been on 5 teams that have won 50 games in his 9 years in the league. He's been on a team that went to the Western Conference Finals, and his teams have won 55% of their games in his career, despite being drafted by one of the worst teams in NBA history. You may not like the way he plays, but it's tough to say he's "hard to win with." The teams that he's on always seem to win at a pretty good clip. Is it possible that his teams lost in the playoffs - kind of like Garnett's T'Wolves teams - because they weren't as good as the other teams?
I'm not a fan at all of the winner, loser or "hard to win with" labels. I think it is something we assign to players that we don't like. If you don't like a kid because of how he plays and he won't fit in to what you are trying to do, by all means stay away from him. But that doesn't mean he is hard to win with. You don't like him, he doesn't fit your program, and that is fine. But we label guys as losers to fit our own narrative - even guys who are on teams that actually win.
We've had a lot of success with kids at RIC that other coaches told me they wouldn't touch because they were hard to win with. You give them a chance to be themselves and see how they fit in with what you want to do. You may not like them or they may not fit in, and that's fine. But if you label them as a guy who you can't win with, you won't give him a chance to show you what he can do.
Think closely about it the next time you hear someone talk about a player in terms of winning and losing. Take a look at whether or not their teams actually win or lose. I think you'll be surprised how much some of these guys you can't win with can help you win.
