One of my other gigs, in addition to reporting, writing (this blog) and substitute teaching, is serving as an official for high school and middle school basketball games. By “official,” I don't mean one of the referees – They make a lot more than me, unfortunately. I mean one of the guys who sits at the table and either runs the scoreboard (high school) or keeps track of the book (middle school).
As such, I have plenty of time to watch basketball games, and all of the different approaches coaches take. It's odd how a team often seems to take on the demeanor of its coach. For example, one coach that constantly screamed and complained with the officials seemingly had a team full of noisy, complaining kids as well. Tall coaches who used to play in the post seemingly have better play with their centers and power forwards, and the inverse is true for guards.
However, as a usually impartial observer, it is maddening to see the focus on fundamentals over winning the game. It is a different stance to take, I know. But since I have no stake with either team usually, I just want to see some intense play and scoring, and teams trying to win. Normally, coaches are more concerned with teaching, and having their players run plays, as opposed to using strategies that would maximize the chances to win.
Case in point with middle school basketball - Realistically, you only want two to five players on a team shooting. For both of the teams I regularly watch, a couple kids are either 1) head and shoulders above the other players offensively or 2) not good, but the rest of the team is downright awful.
The tendency of both coaches is to preach patience and working the ball around for an open look, but really, this just leads to either turnovers of low percentage shots by other players. If anything, they should be preaching efficiency - Get the ball to the best player, and let them shoot almost every possession, whether it be by isolation or an actual play. This would give the best chance for the team to score.
Of course, there is the danger that the other players will get upset because there could be one to three "star" players scoring most of the points. However, here is where the strategy point comes in - You force the other team to choose a defense that will shut down the "star" player. A box-and-one and triangle-and-two are weaker defenses overall and easier for even unskilled players to exploit.
The alternative to the "feed the best player" strategy is to hope that you'll catch the lucky end of an inefficient strategy. i.e. This will be the one game in five that your two-guard will make some shots. Again, I argue that it should be the other way around - Let your point guard, the best player on the team, work a pick-and-roll game with your power forward, and if the defense throws three players to cover those two, then your shooting guard will be open for a layup each time.
The photo of Hoosiers is from here.
Having played middle school basketball, I have an opinion on this. Keep in mind that our middle school teams were basically grooming sessions for a high school team coached using a philosophy of pass-pass-pass-pump fake-pass-pump fake-pass-pass-pump fake-pass-shoot.
ReplyDeleteIn 7th grade, we had standard play: The motion offense. Basically, the point would pass to a wing and if the big man wasn't open, he'd set a pick across the lane for the other big man to flash over. Meanwhile, the point would set a pick for the other winger to come around. That was it. No dribbling, just repeating this process over and over. Sure, we had some plays to beat the zone, but they were nothing fancy, just a variation with more outside shooting instead of shots from the post.
I think at that age, you still need to be working on fundamentals. What you're describing is an NBA-style offense for a bunch of early teenagers. You can't have one or two players taking over the game; The parents would be in an uproar. Most of these kids aren't done growing yet anyway, so if they want any sort of success at the next level I think it's important to expose them to different aspects of the game because they could be playing a different position depending on any sort of growth spurt.
The other issue working against you for a high scoring affair is the fact that there's (probably) no shot clock (at least in Pennsylvania -- I think it varies by state, but only a handful use it). In both middle and high school, there is no point in rushing a bad shot off. Since there's no time limit, just make a few more passes and wait for a better one.
Also, do you REALLY want intense play and scoring? It'd be more entertaining, but you'd only be creating more work for yourself at the scorer's table.
Hey Simon, you raise some good points. Speaking on the point of the parents though, they get pissy regardless of what take you use. One coach spreads the wealth around, and a couple of the parents of better players are pissed at him. Another coach does a minor version of what I'm proposing, and the parents of lesser players are pissed. Speaking as a former sports editor, parents will find ANY reason to nitpick at you.
ReplyDeleteI guess I view this as a way to increase efficiency, and to put your players in a position to succeed. For example, the shooting guard I'm talking about hits maybe 20 percent of her shots - on a good day. As a result, the point guard and power forward, who shoot 40 to 75 percent, should really be taking ALL of the shots. By doing so, the defense would be forced to come out and play them, and even though the shooting guard is bad, she can hit a layup that would be opened up.