The Cross Over Movement Blog

On another forum, a coach asked other coaches what they wouls speak about at a coach’s clinic. Every answer centered on some kind of defensive alignment or offensive set - basketball tactics.

On another site, a coach today asked how he could get more experience because athletic directors tell him he needs more experience to get a varsity job, despite several years coaching at lower levels and with AAU teams.

On my blog, I mentioned Mark Jackson as a possible candidate for the Chicago Bulls’ job if they select Derrick Rose and desire a coach who can mentor a star point guard. A poster responded that Jackson had no experience as a coach and his Aunt Milley who coaches junior varsity basketball is more qualified.

When we evaluate coaches, we base our assessments on their experience, their records and the tactics displayed during games. Questions are asked about the best college basketball coaches and answers immediately center on a coach’s in-game adjustments or ability to win in the NCAA Tournament. However, at least 70% of a college coach’s job is recruiting, which we do not immediately connect to coaching because we immediately equate coaching with X’s and O’s.

I believe this limits coaching. We have not discovered a good way to evaluate coaches and without a good way to evaluate coaches, we have a poor process for hiring coaches. At the NCAA Division I level, a mid-major coach who pulls off an upset in the NCAA Tournament, a la USD’s Bill Grier or Western Kentucky’s Darren Horn is immediately a hot candidate. WKU hit a 30-foot three-pointer at the buzzer to beat Drake and then beat the lower seeded University of San Diego to reach the Sweet 16 and suddenly Horn is a hot name with a new SEC job and million-dollar contract.

I don’t know if Horn is a good coach or not, as I saw WKU play parts of three games. And, that, to a large degree is the problem. I imagine University of South Carolina’s Athletic Director has not seen Horn coach many more than three games either. If the 30-foot three-pointer against Drake misses, Horn is still at Wetern Kentucky. So, a great, but lucky shot is what separates a coach from a good job at his alma mater from a big-time job in a big-time conference with a big-time payday. Did coaching those two extra games make Horn a better coach? Or, did the Sweet 16 allow an AD to justify his hiring and appease the boosters with current “It” coach?

The problem, in my estimation, is that our evaluations center on the what and not the how, which is the central theme of Dov Seidman’s How. When coaches go to coaching clinics, they center on the what (2-3-zone), not the how’s. When AD’s hire coaches, they hire based on the what (win-loss record), not the how’s.

Whats are easy. With the Internet, access to information is easy. If you want to find information on the new “It” offense, the Dribble-Drive-Motion, there are sites, links, books, DVDs, etc.

This season, Vance Walberg was the hot name because of the DDM. Last season, Mike D’Antoni was the hot name because of the Phoenix Suns and their up tempo style of play. However, when people speak about Walberg and D’Antoni, they only cover the what. But, the what is easy to copy. If all they have is the what, the knowledge, they will not last. After one season, everyone has access to the what. Anyone who wants to know how to run Walberg’s system can find the notes online if they search for two minutes.

Walberg, however, is not just about the what. When I watched him run a practice, I did not even notice his offense. Instead, I noticed how he did things. He concentrates on very minute details and does things I had never seen other coaches do. He emphasizes certain things few coaches emphasize and though these things and these emphases, he creates an environment. His teams at Fresno City did not win because they ran the DDM. They won because they executed and they played harder than other teams, and that derived from how he ran his practices and his program.

People criticized the D’Antoni hire because they do not believe he can coach without Steve Nash. They overlook his success in Italy. D’Antoni is not successful because he invented the pick-and-roll or the fastbreak. His success (and apparently his failure depending on who you ask) was, in part, due to his ability to lead a veteran team and keep them healthy throughout the year by not overburdening them with mundane practices. He attracted Shaq and Grant Hill because of his approach to in-season practices, which Steve Kerr apparently did not appreciate.

When D’Antoni took over the Suns, he did not follow the NBA’s standard operating procedures. Instead, he used his creativity and problem solving ability to design a system to exploit the talents of his roster. His success was not due to the knowledge he brought to the job. His success was a result of how he approached the job and his talents - creativity and problem solving among them.

My biggest strength is my curiosity. Curiosity is a talent. I want to know things. I want to know why and how things work. I am open-minded (another talent) and receptive to new ideas, regardless of how outside the box. I look to areas of design for ideas. I am reading a book on storytelling to improve my communication skills. I read business books for insight on leadership and management. I combine my curiosity with my creativity to ask questions, discover answers and look at problems from different perspectives.

Seidman writes in his book that the world is changing from a society based on whats to a society based on hows. Before the Internet Revolution, the people with the specialized what had power. However, now everyone has access to the what. So, the people with value in the marketplace are those who can synthesize or analyze the knowledge and find value in it. Our education system is flawed because it is based on the what (acquiring knowledge) rather than the how (thinking creatively and using the knowledge). Basketball suffers the same fate. We are stuck in a mindset where we overvalue the what and undervalue the how. What offense a coach runs is not nearly as important as how effectively he communicates. What defense he employs is not as important as how he relates to and motivates his players.

Knowledge helps with the how. If I know more about learning, I may teach more effectively. However, simply knowing more is not enough. Experience is only valuable if it improves future performance. However, simply doing something for a long time does not mean one is any better at it than when he started. If I shot the ball for an hour everyday, but shoot with poor mechanics, I will not necessarily be any better at shooting a month from now, despite the investment of 30 hours of experience.

I did a clinic with another guy several years ago. Then, I moved. When I moved back to the area, one of my long time clients told me the other guy had stolen all my drills. He was basically using my workout. The kid was mad. I didn’t care. He knew what I did, but he did not know why and he could not replicate how I taught it. He could do the exact same drills as me, but his workouts were still not as good.

One of my friends is adamant about not letting other coaches watch his workouts. I’m not worried about anyone stealing my drills. Heck, if you have bought my books, you have every drill I have ever used. Drills are easy. Anyone can find drills. It’s how you use the drills, why you use the drill and how you work with the players that seperates or distinguishes a coach. Is Bob Hurley a great coach because of the offense he runs? Is Frank Allocco a great coach because of his defense? No. It’s the way they coach and how their players play. You can study Hurley’s offense all year and that does not mean you can replicate his success because you focus on what he is doing, not how he is doing it.

That’s my point. Focing on the what (knowledge) leads to tiny improvements, maybe. To develop into a significantly better coach, focus on the how, the skills and talents of your coaching. To hire a new coach, hire based on skills and talents, not experience and knowledge. It’s about how you do it, not what you do.