The Cross Over Movement Blog

I have written before that the best ball handling training is to dribble around a couple hyper-active kids who want to chase the ball and play. I also wrote that a dog works too. I saw this about soccer star Ronaldinho:

Ronaldinho has revealed that a dog helped him to learn to play football and to develop the silky skills and tricks that made him into one of the best players ever. The Brazilian explained that a pooch in his neighbourhood in Porto Alegre, Brazil would keep him company after the other boys in the area had gone home and would chase the ball around with him.

On the NorCalPreps message board, I read this comment by a user. This user has a very talented son, I don’t know his ranking, so take it with a grain of salt. However, I do not disagree with any of his comments:

I was in Denver this past weekend for a major AAU/Elite Club Tournament…I saw several top players play this weekend who are RANKED HIGHLY by these various SCOUTING SERVICES and I was alarmed by what I saw and what I read about the PLAYERS’ RANKING!!

I saw Player A, who is ranked, make bonehead decisions, played no defense, and played selfishly, but, Scout A covering the event,
wroted that Player A was “impressive.”

This is what I remembered Player A did that was consistent with what Scout A wrote: Player had one dunk and made a three point shot. So, I said to myself, “So, this what makes a HS BASKETBALL PLAYER, playing on the AAU/Elite Travel Team circuit great?” If you can DUNK, make a 3 POINT SHOT, and score the MOST POINTS, you WILL get RANKED HIGH!”

Not to be overly sensitive to my new found revelation, I continued to watch these HIGHLY RANKED PLAYERS over course of the weekend and true to form, SCOUT A and his buddies validated my aforestated analysis. If you can DUNK a basketball (it shows how athletic you are), make a 3-POINT SHOT (this shows that you are great shooter beyond the arc) and SCORE all the POINTS in the game, you willget RANKED, period!!

It makes no difference to Scout A and his buddies that you do not pass the ball to your teammates, rebound, defend and/or have a BRAIN!! All they (SCOUTS) care about or want to know is this: Can he DUNK? Can he MAKE the 3? Did he SCORE all the POINTS?

MEMO TO HS PLAYERS, COACHES and PARENTS: This is the NEW DEAL: If you want to be a RANKED PLAYER, HE must be able to do the following: DUNK the BALL; MAKE the 3, beyond NBA range (i.e. you do not have to be consistent and you take as many shots you want until you make one) and SCORE all the POINTS in the GAME!! Oh, by the way, SCOUTS do not care if your TEAM WINS of LOSES, just make sure you fulfill the three requirements listed above!!

I have argued with several of the top West Coast scouts from these Internet sites over the years, so I do not disagree that they often make mistakes and typically put too much emphasis on athleticism and scoring. Unfortunately, so do college coaches. I talked to Jim Clayton of Sports City U in Huntington, West Virginia and we talked about many of the same things. Many players peak at 12 or 13-years-old. People believe that they improve as they grow and get older, but for many, they just add size, not skill.

However, my favorite part of the thread is this comment:

I just do not think you can evaluate a kid fully on the AAU level.

Now I am confused. Everytime I question these tournaments and ranking services, I am told that they are important evaluation tools for colleges. The entire system is designed to make recruiting easier for college coaches, so they can go to one place and see many players. And, now people suggest this is not the best way to evaluate players? If we can agree that these games are not the best way for players to improve, and now we agree that they are not the best way to evaluate, why are so many people so sommitted to maintaining the status quo AAU/exposure environment?

I did a coaching clinic in Montreal this weekend, and I started by saying that communication is the most important aspect of coaching. I tend to criticize coaching clinics because coached seem to want the magic drill or play that will solve their problems, but there is no such drill or play.

This morning, while catching up on the news of the last four days, I saw an article about Larry Krystowiak on True Hoop. Krystowiak blamed his problems with the Bucks on his communication:

“As a first-time coach, you know you’re going to be behind in certain elements, which I was, with just the learning curve of the whole situation,” Krystkowiak told the Journal Sentinel. “And kind of looking back on it, I wish I could have focused more attention on communication and some of the emotional issues of some of the players.

Many times, we get distracted by the basketball side of coaching, but coaching is a “people” job and communication, and different things which fall under communication like relating to players, is the most important skill for a coach to develop.

Since Memphis lost in the NCAA Championship Game, everyone has slammed John Calipari for not calling a timeout to tell his team to foul.

I like Calipari’s overall approach. He trusts his players to make plays. That is his coaching style. If you trust your players all season, I think you have to trust them in the final minutes as well. If your style is to call timeout in this situation, like most coaches, then you call timeout. I don’t think you change just because of the situation.

I like coaches who let players make the plays. I think we should encourage coaches who take a step back and give players control over their game and making decisions on the court. It did not work in this case, but Memphis did set the standard for wins in a season.

From the current issue of ESPN the Mag:

“Mike Maddux calls the young American pitchers coming up through the Brewers’ system ‘academy kids’ because they were taught to play by micromanaging coaches on travel-ball teams where the fields were always perfect and the drills always robotic. ‘All they’ve been taught is how to take instruction.”, Mike says. “We were taught how to play the game.’”

The same could be said of basketball players, too.

I graduated from UCLA, so I follow UCLA Basketball closely. This week, the big news is the speculation about Kevin Love, Darren Collison and Russell Westbrook entering the NBA Draft.

Also, this week, several articles have suggested that the NBA wants to raise the age limit to enter the NBA Draft to 20-years-old, though the Players’ Association is not likely to agree to any changes before the current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires.

The draft prospects of Love and Westbrook question the validity of raising the age limit.

Love is as skilled as any college post player this decade. Westbrook is an athletic shooting guard whose biggest weakness is three-point shooting or he is a point guard who has never really played point guard. In most draft previews, Westbrook is a lottery selection and Love is just outside the lottery, though several NBA scouts have questioned Love’s readiness for the NBA.

The NBA tells the public that players need to go to college to develop better skills; however, the NBA drafts players based on talent. A skill is something one can learn; a talent is fairly innate. One can argue whether we are born with our talents or whether our environment plays a role, but in a broader context, we do not learn our talents.

Westbrook is an explosive athlete. Most believe this is a talent. I believe one can improve his vertical jump and explosiveness, but I, for instance, will never be an explosive athlete.

Love throws great outlet passes, finishes in the post with both hands and bodies up well on defense. These are skills he has developed. However, scouts question his size, speed, strength and conditioning.

Westbrook looks like an NBA player. Love does not look like an NBA player. Love, however, possesses NBA skills. Westbrook does not possess any NBA-caliber skills, except possibly his individual defense.

Westbrook possesses talent, which equates to potential. Love possesses skill. We can learn skills, but not talents. Therefore, why should Love return to college? He is more skilled than many NBA post players, but he is not going to become an exceptional athlete with another year of college. Westbrook, on the other hand, may develop new skills with another year of college: he could play point guard for a season to show his ability to play the position and/or he could develop his shooting skills. If he develops one of these skills, he would improve his draft stock dramatically, as he would become either a big, athletic point guard or a capable shooting, undersized but athletic shooting guard.

Love, on the other hand, may improve his skills, but his skills are already proven. He knows how to use his body in the post. He uses both hands well. He can pick and pop and hit the three-pointer. Love is a 6’9 power forward that shoots the ball at the free throw line and from the three-point line better than the 6’3 Westbrook who plays shooting guard. However, most believe Westbrook would be drafted higher based on his talent (potential).

If this is true, why worry about players attending college to develop their skills? Obviously talent is more important than skill and the college experience can do little for the development of talents.

When I published Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development, people asked me if I thought I could change anything. It might be a coincidence (though I know my book has been in David Stern’s office, Nike grassroots basketball office and Jerry Colangelo’s office), but according to this article, changes are happening.

The problem I see initially is that it seems like more of the same, just a competitor for AAU attempting to dominate the marketplace and create a basketball monopoly rather than actually change the way we develop players.

“This organization will offer programming that will cater first to young men in the summer environment – because those are the immediate problem areas – but ultimately the new structure will benefit anyone involved in the sport,” Brand said.

The LLC will sanction leagues, tournaments, camps and year-round development opportunities –the events at which NCAA coaches may attend.

Basically, the NBA and NCAA are using their leverage to squeeze everyone else out of the marketplace. Now, it governed properly, this could be a positive. However, why create an LLC? Why not run the programs from USA Basketball as most European Federations do?

Brand and Stern said the new structure is designed to negate the effects of third-party influences currently working the youth basketball environment. Stakeholders believe there are many good coaches and opportunities for youth outside of scholastic basketball, but the current structure affords access from people who may not have the player’s best interests at heart.

“We find third parties – sometimes with good intentions and sometimes not – encouraging young men to prepare for professional basketball, and only for professional basketball,” Brand said.

It will be interesting to see how they address this issue. So far, the changes only signify a switch from one business model to another. However, nothing has been said about how this organization will create a better development model. Maybe they will follow the outline in my book; if so, they should contact me as I have updated the model covered in Chapter 13 and 14. However, if the only change is the business model, it may or may not have a positive affect on basketball development (after all, they are partnering with shoe companies anyway, so how great can the change be?), but it will fall short unless it addresses actual developmental issues.

As for the partnership, I do not understand the NCAA’s role. The NCAA governs its member institutions. Now it governs youth basketball as well? It does not even do a good job governing its own institutions. Are we really supposed to continue this belief that the NCAA is a non-profit organization? The NCAA is about as big business as it gets.

The enduring image of the Memphis victory over UCLA is Chris Douglas-Roberts emphatic dunk over Kevin Love on a back door play from the corner (see Blitz Basketball for more on the play).

Memphis executed the play and Love was a half-step late in his defensive rotation. Rather than try to block the shot, he attempted to step in front and take the charge. He was in position, but the officials made a good no call because he was too close to the rim and CDR did a good job to avoid most of the contact and maneuver his body around Love. If Love had rotated a half-step quicker and got another step out from the rim, it would have been a charge.

I am not a huge fan of charges. I generally believe officials call charges far too often and I saw three girls seriously injured in college games this season when a player tried to slide in front at the last minute.

However, a proper rotation and good positioning should be rewarded when an offensive player runs over a defender. The CDR/Love instance was the correct no-call. However, the hype surrounding the play is the problem.

On the highlight show, Seth Davis made a big deal out of Love being “posterized.” On message boards today, many posters are ridiculing Love.

How are young players supposed to develop good fundamentals when they are so often ridiculed? Earlier in the game, in a 1v1 situation, Josh Shipp ran out of the way and gave a Memphis player a dunk. Is that the message we want to send? Get out of the way to avoid being on a poster or having some hack writer make fun of you on national television? Sure, there are some times when you would rather see a player give the dunk rather than make an awkward challenge where both players could get hurt. However, when you are even with the other player at the free throw line, have the angle and are in a national semi-final, that is probably not the time. Shipp was also the player beaten on the backdoor play for CDR’s dunk. Shouldn’t the blame be on Shipp for giving up the wide open cut to the rim, as opposed to Love for trying to step in front and take a charge?

How can coaches compete with the images they see every day on television and Internet sites? What type of player are we advocating when the smart play is to back away to avoid humiliation rather than trying to make a defensive play?

At my boxing class today, there was girl who was in her second class. She was the only girl in the building. We were hitting the speed bag and she was struggling. So, the instructor comes over and says, “It’s easy. Do it like this.”

This is poor coaching. Rather than explaining and demonstrating how to do it properly, he basically insults her. For him, it is very easy; he is a former professional boxer who has hit the speed bag for 20+ years. He forgets what it is like to be new to boxing and struggle with something for the first time.

Too many times, basketball coaches do the same thing. We look at schools from our viewpoint, rather than from the viewpoint of the player. What is easy to an experienced coach is often foreign for a novice player. When we instruct, we must remember who we are teaching and instruct at their level, not ours.

In my newsletters the past couple weeks, I have written about hamstring and hip issues several times. On his blog, Vern Gambetta tackled the issues as several Major League Baseball players have suffered hamstring pulls. He writes:

Based on my observations over the years here is my take on the hamstring pull situation in baseball and for that matter other sports. Too much emphasis on static stretching in warm-up.

I saw a basketball team start practice last night. A lap around the court followed by static stretching. My classic example of an inexperienced coach.

Flexibility of the hamstring is basically a non factor in hamstring pulls, it is dynamic hip flexibility that is important…The current rage in warm-up does not involve enough movement, way too much at walking tempo, you need to build the warm-up in a crescendo to top speed sprints…The hamstring is a transverse plane muscle that is stressed when running a curve and on deceleration. There is too much strengthening using non functional exercises in prone and supine positions.

Gambetta’s solutions:

More lunges in all planes, step-ups both low and high, more emphasis on running turns and at least two days a week of all out sprinting outside the game. It takes time and preparation with attention to detail.