Hearing that players are rewarded with starting spots based on how they practice begs the question - what if guys are really, really good in practice, and then lay an egg during gametime?
Not saying this is necessarily the case with this squad, but how is that a good overall philosophy? Shouldn't it be more about the five guys who give you the best chance to win? Just playing in grade school and high school, there were always guys lighting it up in practice, but when it was crunch time peed down their leg. I'd rather have five gamers than five guys who are great in practice.
Sure there are exception but they guys that work the hardest are typically your better players. Those who put in the effort outside of games get the time in games. What does practice tell you as a coach
1. Who works hardest? Runs more, shoots more, gets there early and stays late
2. Who are the leaders?
3. Who do the other players defer to?
4. Who do you have to correct the most if they are out of position or fail a rotation?
5. Which players pick up what the opposing team is trying to do on game film.
6. Who seems to understand the defense and offense?
7. Who is in the best shape?
So what is more likely; a player viewed as being better at doing the things above and then peeing down their leg or a player only producing in a game? Who is going to be more consistent and who is more likely to improve?
On every team I have been on I could tell who would get time and who wouldn't.
Al McGuire used the phrase "3:00 shooters" to describe guys who were good practice players but could not translate that to producing under the bright lights.
Quote from: BallBoy on November 09, 2014, 12:45:32 PM
Sure there are exception but they guys that work the hardest are typically your better players. Those who put in the effort outside of games get the time in games. What does practice tell you as a coach
1. Who works hardest? Runs more, shoots more, gets there early and stays late
2. Who are the leaders?
3. Who do the other players defer to?
4. Who do you have to correct the most if they are out of position or fail a rotation?
5. Which players pick up what the opposing team is trying to do on game film.
6. Who seems to understand the defense and offense?
7. Who is in the best shape?
So what is more likely; a player viewed as being better at doing the things above and then peeing down their leg or a player only producing in a game? Who is going to be more consistent and who is more likely to improve?
On every team I have been on I could tell who would get time and who wouldn't.
Excellent post and thread...very good. I was accused of being a 'practice player' and I despise that.
I disagree, I like the games more. But I love to practice as well. But I am not a bench sitter but I play better off the bench.
Good basketball thread. I could go on and on on this topic and try to explain who I think this is referring to on the current and past MU teams but most of you do not have that much time to read it.
So I will pass...good read.
It's rarely an either/or thing. Most of the time, the best players also take practice very seriously. Jordan was a legendary practice competitor and lifted everybody around him-- even when he was punching Steve Kerr in the face!
Just saw this thread. My dad coaches high scool basketball at a pretty competitive program (at least since he's been there) over the past 5 years, the mist talented player was the hardest worker and best practice player only once and that was because he had to at 5'6" (plays d1 now)
The other 4 years the most talented kids who went on to get scholarships were some of the least motivated players I have ever seen in terms of practice but man they were something else to watch on gameday. My point is, there is a huge differnce between the two.
Quote from: ChitownJuan on November 12, 2014, 06:35:19 PM
Just saw this thread. My dad coaches high scool basketball at a pretty competitive program (at least since he's been there) over the past 5 years, the mist talented player was the hardest worker and best practice player only once and that was because he had to at 5'6" (plays d1 now)
The other 4 years the most talented kids who went on to get scholarships were some of the least motivated players I have ever seen in terms of practice but man they were something else to watch on gameday. My point is, there is a huge differnce between the two.
OOC, did your dad ever bench those talented kids when they didn't take practice seriously?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 12, 2014, 06:47:57 PM
OOC, did your dad ever bench those talented kids when they didn't take practice seriously?
When he had his own team yea. He has been an assistant for the past few years though cause he doesn't teach at the same school as he coaches which makes it difficult to be a head varsity coach. The guy who is the head coach let's players get away with a lot more than my dad likes but he has his own team again this year. (sophomores)
I see what youre getting at TAMU. For my dad personally he always plays the guys who don't screw up and don't do stupid things (not related to practice) he's suspended his entire team except for 5 guys one time because they did dumb things in the classroom. Also made them play 4 on 5 for a quarter. Should be fun to watch him with his own team again.
Starters don't always get the most minutes (see Juan last season), so I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea to give starting spots to the hardest workers in practice. If it doesn't translate into game performance, the "gamers" can still end up with 30+ minutes...including down the stretch, when you'll need them most.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on November 12, 2014, 07:19:56 PM
Starters don't always get the most minutes (see Juan last season), so I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea to give starting spots to the hardest workers in practice.
Very nice point.
Toni Kukoc didn't start. Neither did Kevin McHale for several years. John Havlicek. Jamal Crawford. James Harden. Manu Ginobili. On our own team, Davante didn't start.
In general, it's pretty unimportant who starts.
Quote from: MU82 on November 12, 2014, 08:42:18 PM
Very nice point.
Toni Kukoc didn't start. Neither did Kevin McHale for several years. John Havlicek. Jamal Crawford. James Harden. Manu Ginobili. On our own team, Davante didn't start.
In general, it's pretty unimportant who starts.
Its a little different in high school. 8 less minutes of game time so the best players play the majority of the time
Quote from: ChitownJuan on November 12, 2014, 06:35:19 PM
Just saw this thread. My dad coaches high scool basketball at a pretty competitive program (at least since he's been there) over the past 5 years, the mist talented player was the hardest worker and best practice player only once and that was because he had to at 5'6" (plays d1 now)
The other 4 years the most talented kids who went on to get scholarships were some of the least motivated players I have ever seen in terms of practice but man they were something else to watch on gameday. My point is, there is a huge differnce between the two.
I've never been apart of a college program, but I suspect most of the better/best players work hard in practice. The talent level is so good at the D1 level compare to HS, that very few guys would be able to simply turn it on when it comes to gametime. Also, I can't imagine any accomplished D1 coach letting a kid coast through practice.
But, like I said, I've never played D1 ball, so somebody feel free to correct me if I'm being naive.
Quote from: ChitownJuan on November 12, 2014, 08:56:12 PM
Its a little different in high school. 8 less minutes of game time so the best players play the majority of the time
Yet another good point.
I coach middle school and our first game is today (mucho nervous, not that anybody asked). We play 7 minute quarters and yes, my best players will play most of the gam,e (but everybody will play at least a little). My best shooter won't start but she very well might play the most minutes or darn close to it.
From KO, to Mike, to TC, to Buzz there were always times when fans felt the coach wasn't giving the young guys a chance.
We saw this with Shannon Smith, with Hutch (did he play before the NIT?), Amo and so on.
I expect to see as much of if not more of Derrick and Carlino than the young guys (Duane and JJJ) early on in the season. Wojo knows what he is going to get with them. There's comfort in certainty. I also expect this board to explode.
Quote from: MU82 on November 13, 2014, 09:34:23 AM
Yet another good point.
I coach middle school and our first game is today (mucho nervous, not that anybody asked). We play 7 minute quarters and yes, my best players will play most of the gam,e (but everybody will play at least a little). My best shooter won't start but she very well might play the most minutes or darn close to it.
When you say "my best players" do you mean the one's you think are the best or the ones that your fans know are the best?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 13, 2014, 10:37:10 AM
When you say "my best players" do you mean the one's you think are the best or the ones that your fans know are the best?
Well played.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 13, 2014, 10:37:10 AM
When you say "my best players" do you mean the one's you think are the best or the ones that your fans know are the best?
What fans? You mean their parents?
Quote from: Canned Goods n Ammo on November 13, 2014, 09:29:17 AM
I've never been apart of a college program, but I suspect most of the better/best players work hard in practice. The talent level is so good at the D1 level compare to HS, that very few guys would be able to simply turn it on when it comes to gametime. Also, I can't imagine any accomplished D1 coach letting a kid coast through practice.
But, like I said, I've never played D1 ball, so somebody feel free to correct me if I'm being naive.
My kids are in D1 sports .I have learned that every practice is viewed by the coaches as the equivalent of a game and they communicate that in no uncertain terms to the players. So that is why coaches tend to give the minutes to the "practice" players. I do feel that certain kids perform better in practice than they do in games. I have rarely seen it the other way around though. Your point that the competition is too strong for a player to just turn it on at the game is very accurate.
Quote from: ChitownJuan on November 13, 2014, 12:49:12 PM
What fans? You mean their parents?
Exactly.
And most parents think their precious cherub is the best.
I know I did when my kids played! A parent is allowed to be biased!