A serious basketball question with potentially broader societal implications

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Can a college coach really fix an 18-22 year old’s shot? At what point are things set to a large degree as to one’s skills so that no amount of teaching is going to significantly move the needle (re shooting % in actual games)?

Can a high school coach turn a kid from a middling basketball player into a good one just through teaching and time?

In academics, can a high school teacher reliably and repeatedly turn kids a few grade levels behind in reading or math into honors students/great performers on SAT?

Where do we draw the line? How much in time and resources at these levels do we expend for a small amount of change, if that’s what the data shows, and wouldn’t we better off focusing on other avenues to help out a kid, player, program, or school?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Can a college coach really fix an 18-22 year old’s shot? At what point are things set to a large degree as to one’s skills so that no amount of teaching is going to significantly move the needle (re shooting % in actual games)?

Can a high school coach turn a kid from a middling basketball player into a good one just through teaching and time?

In academics, can a high school teacher reliably and repeatedly turn kids a few grade levels behind in reading or math into honors students/great performers on SAT?

Where do we draw the line? How much in time and resources at these levels do we expend for a small amount of change, if that’s what the data shows, and wouldn’t we better off focusing on other avenues to help out a kid, player, program, or school?

In my experience in sports tweaking technique followed by repetition works. Years ago Gary Player had a wonderful tips section on sportscenter. He was demonstrating how to get out of a trap. He was showing how to set up your stance and where to hold the club and how to open your hands. Then he chipped the ball about 4 inches from the cup, looked into the camera, and goes "Now do that 25,000 times and you too will no longer fear traps." Technique and enough reps you can fix anything. The 25,000 is what most people won't do.

What I don't believe in is the "natural" stuff. I was the slowest 40 yard runner I've ever seen. Slower than the goalie on every team I've ever been on. I worked nonstop to get faster. Tried every "tried and true" method and every gimmick. None of it made much difference. You're either fast or slow and not much can be done about it. You're either athletic or you're not.

So technique yes.
Natural ability. Not much. Only strength with weights.

Imo

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

In my experience in sports tweaking technique followed by repetition works. Years ago Gary Player had a wonderful tips section on sportscenter. He was demonstrating how to get out of a trap. He was showing how to set up your stance and where to hold the club and how to open your hands. Then he chipped the ball about 4 inches from the cup, looked into the camera, and goes "Now do that 25,000 times and you too will no longer fear traps." Technique and enough reps you can fix anything. The 25,000 is what most people won't do.

What I don't believe in is the "natural" stuff. I was the slowest 40 yard runner I've ever seen. Slower than the goalie on every team I've ever been on. I worked nonstop to get faster. Tried every "tried and true" method and every gimmick. None of it made much difference. You're either fast or slow and not much can be done about it. You're either athletic or you're not.

So technique yes.
Natural ability. Not much. Only strength with weights.

Imo

I’m missing something. Doesn’t your second paragraph provide evidence that natural ability in some instances outweighs technique, etc?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I’m missing something. Doesn’t your second paragraph provide evidence that natural ability in some instances outweighs technique, etc?

Maybe I wasn't clear. My point that i inarticulately made is that technique can be improved greatly with effort and coaching. i don't think you can make as marked strides with increasing "natural" ability - like get faster, jump higher, etc. A serious swimmer like Noodle might say otherwise but I bet he was born with a build that lent itself to the sport and his training only enhanced his natural ability

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Can a college coach really fix an 18-22 year old’s shot? At what point are things set to a large degree as to one’s skills so that no amount of teaching is going to significantly move the needle (re shooting % in actual games)?

Can a high school coach turn a kid from a middling basketball player into a good one just through teaching and time?

In academics, can a high school teacher reliably and repeatedly turn kids a few grade levels behind in reading or math into honors students/great performers on SAT?

Where do we draw the line? How much in time and resources at these levels do we expend for a small amount of change, if that’s what the data shows, and wouldn’t we better off focusing on other avenues to help out a kid, player, program, or school?

I think it works both ways. Coaching and instruction can make an individual better or worse, same for academics and thinking skills. I have a firm belief that no matter who you are, what your circumstances are, or how much you think you have disadvantages, you can improve with self-help and instruction. You can also backslide with poor or misguided education. While more time and more resources are nice, they aren’t necessary to provide support and education for people. This is why I believe good education and instruction is vital for everything. The deterioration of this concerns me.

And age doesn’t matter. I have ongoing discussions about aging with different people. As we age physical limitations are obvious as is a slow-down between our ears. On the other hand, I know I am not in optimal physical or mental condition, so striving for betterment in both is a constant goal even though the general decline is unmistakable .

Edit. Great thread starter!

 

[zeke4ahs]

Does the 10,000 hour theory come into play here? I think improving shot, dribbling, defense, etc are all things that can markedly improve. Jumping and rebounding maybe a little. But quickness, and basic athletic ability I think for the most part is there or not. But that doesn’t mean you can’t improve tremendously as a player. Victor Oladipo is a good example. He had a lot ( ok Aloha?) of natural athletic gifts and talent but improved every year due to hard work.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Does the 10,000 hour theory come into play here? I think improving shot, dribbling, defense, etc are all things that can markedly improve. Jumping and rebounding maybe a little. But quickness, and basic athletic ability I think for the most part is there or not. But that doesn’t mean you can’t improve tremendously as a player. Victor Oladipo is a good example. He had a lot ( ok Aloha?) of natural athletic gifts and talent but improved every year due to hard work.

Agree 100 percent.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Does the 10,000 hour theory come into play here? I think improving shot, dribbling, defense, etc are all things that can markedly improve. Jumping and rebounding maybe a little. But quickness, and basic athletic ability I think for the most part is there or not. But that doesn’t mean you can’t improve tremendously as a player. Victor Oladipo is a good example. He had a lot ( ok Aloha?) of natural athletic gifts and talent but improved every year due to hard work.

I think the ability to do physically better depends on your starting point. For example, I know I could bike faster and longer because I’m not in optimal condition.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Can a college coach really fix an 18-22 year old’s shot? At what point are things set to a large degree as to one’s skills so that no amount of teaching is going to significantly move the needle (re shooting % in actual games)?

Can a high school coach turn a kid from a middling basketball player into a good one just through teaching and time?

In academics, can a high school teacher reliably and repeatedly turn kids a few grade levels behind in reading or math into honors students/great performers on SAT?

Where do we draw the line? How much in time and resources at these levels do we expend for a small amount of change, if that’s what the data shows, and wouldn’t we better off focusing on other avenues to help out a kid, player, program, or school?

Missing so far is inspiration. If a coach of a 6-year old inspires them to work hard, they will become much better than if they never had that inspiration. The same is true for a teacher.

But it is rare for a coach or teacher to provide that inspiration. It can happen, but more often it has to come from family or from within.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think the ability to do physically better depends on your starting point. For example, I know I could bike faster and longer because I’m not in optimal condition.

I get your point but I didn't construe his post to mean going from out of shape to in shape. I took it to mean your natural base

 

[mcmurtry66]

Missing so far is inspiration. If a coach of a 6-year old inspires them to work hard, they will become much better than if they never had that inspiration. The same is true for a teacher.

But it is rare for a coach or teacher to provide that inspiration. It can happen, but more often it has to come from family or from within.

It's huge

 

[hoosboot]

Missing so far is inspiration. If a coach of a 6-year old inspires them to work hard, they will become much better than if they never had that inspiration. The same is true for a teacher.

But it is rare for a coach or teacher to provide that inspiration. It can happen, but more often it has to come from family or from within.

100%. The #1 thing a teacher or coach can do at that age is to inspire a kid to want to work at things they aren't necessarily already good at. Sometimes that requires discipline, sometimes that requires permission to fail, sometimes that requires helping them to see unlocked abilities that they themselves don't see, and sometimes it requires showing that you care. And the first thing on that list always works better once you've established the last one.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I get your point but I didn't construe his post to mean going from out of shape to in shape. I took it to mean your natural base

Mostly agree. You can’t teach a small dog big dog tricks. But at the same time, I think the “natural base” can be made better. But having never done anything physical at an elite level, need to think about that. That said, being an elite thinker I can also say I can improve.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Missing so far is inspiration. If a coach of a 6-year old inspires them to work hard, they will become much better than if they never had that inspiration. The same is true for a teacher.

But it is rare for a coach or teacher to provide that inspiration. It can happen, but more often it has to come from family or from within.

Agree that inspiration is very important. But it’s an elusive thing. I was inspired by many friends, coworkers, partners, clients and professors without them ever intending that. I have learned that I have inspired people without ever setting out to do that. When I’ve actually tried to inspire people, it seems like a hit or miss thing. So I agree with your second paragraph.

 

[Cortez88]

I’d also throw in grit. There’s a lot of recent work out there about whether it is innate or can be learned. I know that I have one kid who has grit in spades. She’s beaten a lot of better tennis players because the ball just keeps coming back. I’ve watched her break kids brains because they couldn’t figure her out. I’ve also seen her get whooped by girls who are just better skilled and more natural.

 

[zeke4ahs]

100%. The #1 thing a teacher or coach can do at that age is to inspire a kid to want to work at things they aren't necessarily already good at. Sometimes that requires discipline, sometimes that requires permission to fail, sometimes that requires helping them to see unlocked abilities that they themselves don't see, and sometimes it requires showing that you care. And the first thing on that list always works better once you've established the last one.

Thanks for bringing teachers up, you and Marv. As a lifelong lover of books, I always felt one of my most important jobs was to get little ones to enjoy reading. I always told them you would never, ever be bored if you enjoyed reading. I adored finding a kid that didn’t like to read and finding something for him/her. Read a large variety of books aloud daily , had reading slumber parties ( all day reads), and picked out sports, graphic novels, comic books, audio books, whatever it took. Once they wanted to read, half the battle was gone. Nothing brings me more joy than hearing from my kids ( now adults), talk about reading. I’m friends with many on Goodreads and we share suggestions.

 

[hoot1]

In my experience in sports tweaking technique followed by repetition works. Years ago Gary Player had a wonderful tips section on sportscenter. He was demonstrating how to get out of a trap. He was showing how to set up your stance and where to hold the club and how to open your hands. Then he chipped the ball about 4 inches from the cup, looked into the camera, and goes "Now do that 25,000 times and you too will no longer fear traps." Technique and enough reps you can fix anything. The 25,000 is what most people won't do.

What I don't believe in is the "natural" stuff. I was the slowest 40 yard runner I've ever seen. Slower than the goalie on every team I've ever been on. I worked nonstop to get faster. Tried every "tried and true" method and every gimmick. None of it made much difference. You're either fast or slow and not much can be done about it. You're either athletic or you're not.

So technique yes.
Natural ability. Not much. Only strength with weights.

Imo

Asked my high school track coach to teach me to run faster.

He replied, "I am a good coach and you are pretty smart, but you'll never learn to run faster.

 

[Noodle]

Maybe I wasn't clear. My point that i inarticulately made is that technique can be improved greatly with effort and coaching. i don't think you can make as marked strides with increasing "natural" ability - like get faster, jump higher, etc. A serious swimmer like Noodle might say otherwise but I bet he was born with a build that lent itself to the sport and his training only enhanced his natural ability

I suppose my build does lend itself to swimming a bit (higher torso to leg length ratio than average, as well as high joint flexibility). At the same time, at 5’10” I always was on the shorter side of D1 swimmers. My physiology also meant that I was never going to be a sprinter.

But technique can absolutely be improved significantly, and at any age. For example, my breaststroke form was better at 53 than it was in college. Even in my 50s I have managed to change certain habits I had in the water for decades. 2-4 weeks of focused repetition made the changes hold.

And coaches make a huge difference, including for motivation - if the athlete is willing. Now, a coach can’t turn a slug into Michael Phelps, but a coach can help to maximize an athlete’s potential.

 

[Noodle]

Can a college coach really fix an 18-22 year old’s shot? At what point are things set to a large degree as to one’s skills so that no amount of teaching is going to significantly move the needle (re shooting % in actual games)?

Can a high school coach turn a kid from a middling basketball player into a good one just through teaching and time?

In academics, can a high school teacher reliably and repeatedly turn kids a few grade levels behind in reading or math into honors students/great performers on SAT?

Where do we draw the line? How much in time and resources at these levels do we expend for a small amount of change, if that’s what the data shows, and wouldn’t we better off focusing on other avenues to help out a kid, player, program, or school?

Based on my own experience with changing sports technique, I think a college basketball player’s shot definitely can be fixed.

 

[hoosboot]

I suppose my build does lend itself to swimming a bit (higher torso to leg length ratio than average, as well as high joint flexibility). At the same time, at 5’10” I always was on the shorter side of D1 swimmers. My physiology also meant that I was never going to be a sprinter.

But technique can absolutely be improved significantly, and at any age. For example, my breaststroke form was better at 53 than it was in college. Even in my 50s I have managed to change certain habits I had in the water for decades. 2-4 weeks of focused repetition made the changes hold.

And coaches make a huge difference, including for motivation - if the athlete is willing. Now, a coach can’t turn a slug into Michael Phelps, but a coach can help to maximize an athlete’s potential.

Really good point about maximizing potential. I think what we're talking about here is not about making every kid world class at something. It's about maximizing the potential of a kid...making strides from where that kid is rather than against some elite standard.

That's one of the things I have always loved about swimming as a sport for kids. The "personal best" approach of the sport puts kids in a mindset of competing against themselves as much as they compete against all the other kids in the pool. Nothing motivates a kid quite like success and personal bests are fantastic motivation that aren't dependent natural physical ability.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I’m missing something. Doesn’t your second paragraph provide evidence that natural ability in some instances outweighs technique,

Does the 10,000 hour theory come into play here? I think improving shot, dribbling, defense, etc are all things that can markedly improve. Jumping and rebounding maybe a little. But quickness, and basic athletic ability I think for the most part is there or not. But that doesn’t mean you can’t improve tremendously as a player. Victor Oladipo is a good example. He had a lot ( ok Aloha?) of natural athletic gifts and talent but improved every year due to hard work.

I knew Vic would be Ex. A. I consider him an outlier. I think it’s clearly possible, but that doesn’t mean it’s probable.

Regarding college coaches, for example, are there coaches who consistently improve their players shooting % over four years? Over what they shot in high school? Over a long enough time period to make the sample size significant enough we can be confident they are teaching shooting rather than recruiting kids who are talented shooters? Where is college basketball’s Billy Bean?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I knew Vic would be Ex. A. I consider him an outlier. I think it’s clearly possible, but that doesn’t mean it’s probable.

Regarding college coaches, for example, are there coaches who consistently improve their players shooting % over four years? Over what they shot in high school? Over a long enough time period to make the sample size significant enough we can be confident they are teaching shooting rather than recruiting kids who are talented shooters? Where is college basketball’s Billy Bean?

I played D1 in another sport. No one helped with technique. If your technique was bad you were replaced. There was very little individual anything. It was all team oriented at that point. Could be unique to the program and Coach I guess but we got zero instruction

 

[T.M.P.]

Can a college coach really fix an 18-22 year old’s shot? At what point are things set to a large degree as to one’s skills so that no amount of teaching is going to significantly move the needle (re shooting % in actual games)?

Can a high school coach turn a kid from a middling basketball player into a good one just through teaching and time?

In academics, can a high school teacher reliably and repeatedly turn kids a few grade levels behind in reading or math into honors students/great performers on SAT?

Where do we draw the line? How much in time and resources at these levels do we expend for a small amount of change, if that’s what the data shows, and wouldn’t we better off focusing on other avenues to help out a kid, player, program, or school?

Fwiw there's a huge difference in teaching and fixing. Fixing implies bad habits being used, which are far harder to correct than teaching from scratch.

Can shooting be taught? Yes, of course. Can bad habits be eliminated, and replaced by good habits. Sometimes, but it takes far more work from the teacher and student.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I knew Vic would be Ex. A. I consider him an outlier. I think it’s clearly possible, but that doesn’t mean it’s probable.

Regarding college coaches, for example, are there coaches who consistently improve their players shooting % over four years? Over what they shot in high school? Over a long enough time period to make the sample size significant enough we can be confident they are teaching shooting rather than recruiting kids who are talented shooters? Where is college basketball’s Billy Bean?

Haston developed his shot in college, over the summer. So it is possible. But he put a lot of work into it because he believed Knight telling him it would make a difference. I think some players don't believe either in themselves or do not see how it will help.

On the women's team, I think Berger could be a shooter. But a three shooter has to have the psychology not to let a couple misses bother them and it seems to bother her. I had a daughter the same way (not nearly as good), in practice she could shoot but refused to do anything but drive in a game. She couldn't tolerate missing.

Galloway needs to spend this summer shooting and getting confidence.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Fwiw there's a huge difference in teaching and fixing. Fixing implies bad habits being used, which are far harder to correct than teaching from scratch.

Can shooting be taught? Yes, of course. Can bad habits be eliminated, and replaced by good habits. Sometimes, but it takes far more work from the teacher and student.

This is a good point, and why I quit golf

 

[Noodle]

I knew Vic would be Ex. A. I consider him an outlier. I think it’s clearly possible, but that doesn’t mean it’s probable.

Regarding college coaches, for example, are there coaches who consistently improve their players shooting % over four years? Over what they shot in high school? Over a long enough time period to make the sample size significant enough we can be confident they are teaching shooting rather than recruiting kids who are talented shooters? Where is college basketball’s Billy Bean?

But that begs the question: what makes someone a great shooter if it’s not primarily great coaching and lots of practice? How much of it is mental, especially when you’re in a game rather than practice?

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Regarding coaching ( and teaching in general), I’ve noticed some tiers of skills ( I’ll use baseball as my example since I know it best). I wonder if others agree with this or mot

First tier can identify when a player/student is doing something wrong

Second tier can identify what exactly is going wrong ( elbow too low on a throw, weight shifting too soon, casting hands out too much)

Third tier knows the drills (there are usually several) to fix the problem

Fourth tier knows how to teach the drills for the appropriate age/ability level

Fifth tier knows which ones to try, how much encouragement vs. negative oral feedback, etc to get the player to respond

This is all just about finding the right way to teach, leaving out trying to devise and implement strategy, motivate, etc.

I can count on one hand the number of coaches I’ve met who could do all five. I’m not sure anyone could do it for multiple age groups (pro and 12 yr olds for example).

I don’t think I ever, personally, had a teacher in school (really all I can remember is middle school onwards) who could do more than the third tier or so. I actually think elementary teachers might be better trained nowadays to do most of these things.

 

[Noodle]

I played D1 in another sport. No one helped with technique. If your technique was bad you were replaced. There was very little individual anything. It was all team oriented at that point. Could be unique to the program and Coach I guess but we got zero instruction

Of course. Even in a sport like swimming at the collegiate level coaches are tweaking technique rather than making wholesale changes. A D1 coach doesn’t see a guy swimming in high school and think his stroke is a mess but I can fix that, he’s got potential. I suppose that could happen with a sprinter who’s fast in spite of himself, especially if he hasn’t been swimming for 10+ years, but that’s rare.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Of course. Even in a sport like swimming at the collegiate level coaches are tweaking technique rather than making wholesale changes. A D1 coach doesn’t see a guy swimming in high school and think his stroke is a mess but I can fix that, he’s got potential. I suppose that could happen with a sprinter who’s fast in spite of himself, especially if he hasn’t been swimming for 10+ years, but that’s rare.

I have a friend who had a daughter dive for IU, she did not win the state in HS but she was offered and not the winner. He told me IU's coach saw things in her that he knew he could work on and turn her into a great diver.

 

[iuwclurker]

But that begs the question: what makes someone a great shooter if it’s not primarily great coaching and lots of practice? How much of it is mental, especially when you’re in a game rather than practice?

Hand eye coordination.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

But that begs the question: what makes someone a great shooter if it’s not primarily great coaching and lots of practice? How much of it is mental, especially when you’re in a game rather than practice?

For what I’m curious about, my question is how much of shooting is determined by the coach? I’ve seen people say we need better shooting coaches for this team. I’m questioning whether that would matter, if any coaches matter that much at the collegiate level in making someone a better shooter. I don’t know the answer.

 

[UncleMark]

For what I’m curious about, my question is how much of shooting is determined by the coach? I’ve seen people say we need better shooting coaches for this team. I’m questioning whether that would matter, if any coaches matter that much at the collegiate level in making someone a better shooter. I don’t know the answer.

I remember way back in the day a high school coach saying the reason Indiana kids have such poor shot form and mechanics is that they start shooting in driveways and barn lots so early that it's all they can do just to get the ball up there.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I remember way back in the day a high school coach saying the reason Indiana kids have such poor shot form and mechanics is that they start shooting in driveways and barn lots so early that it's all they can do just to get the ball up there.

Huh I never heard that Indiana kids were known for poor form

 

[UncleMark]

Huh I never heard that Indiana kids were known for poor form

True or not, it was a truism back in the day (early 70s is when I heard it).

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

True or not, it was a truism back in the day (early 70s is when I heard it).

I tried to google search for stats on bball coaches improving shooting % and came across this analysis which isn’t directly on point but pretty interesting:

Building the perfect arc in your shot | Winning Hoops

Next time all of your players are in the gym, watch them as they shoot around. Don't look at their mechanics, but rather look at the arc of their shot. Is the shot flat?

winninghoops.com

 

[T.M.P.]

This is a good point, and why I quit golf

Once it becomes muscle memory and habit you basically have to quit walking and learn to crawl again. Instinct is still attached to the old habit so you spend some time in between old and new having to think.... and shoot air balls. That's always fun ..

I taught myself fingerstyle guitar after playing with a pick for 15+ years. That first year ... I basically couldn't play anything ..