Curry Exit Shooting Drill
Sooner Shooting Drill
Sooner Shooting Drill is typically a team shooting drill with 3-5 players per group, and 2-3 basketballs per group. With a group, as soon as the passer passes, she sprints to half-court because she does not have to wait for the shooter to retrieve the ball.
Team Shooting Drills and Practice Design
Serbia Shooting Drill
The Fascination with the Midrange
The angst around the reduction of midrange jump shots confuses me, but Ben Taylor of Thinking Basketball provided an interesting look at the value of the midrange shot in the NBA, and specifically with the San Antonio Spurs.
Here is a summary:
Taylor is accurate in that shots are not attempted in a vacuum, and one must account for specific variables to evaluate a specific shot. Of course, ESPN’s Kirk Goldsberry argued differently when Dame Lillard hit the three to end OKC’s season:
Dame's game-winner wasn't a "good shot" – it was a great shot. https://t.co/QtKpIQurzC pic.twitter.com/E7GduZ2qXt
— Kirk Goldsberry (@kirkgoldsberry) April 24, 2019
In a vacuum, a 40% shot is great offense in the half court, as Taylor’s video explained. However, on a game-winning shot with the game tied, is a 40% shot a good shot? If Lillard shoots 50% from midrange, isn’t that a better shot in that exact situation?
This is the difference between arguing about numbers (general, in a vacuum) and specifics. I lean toward 3>2, but there are times when any shot works or the highest percentage shot beats the highest efficiency shot.
Taylor’s argument about the midrange highlights good to great midrange shooters. This always had been my argument against long-range two-point jump shots.
A midrange jump shot is a more difficult, more complex shot than a catch-and-shoot three-pointer. Honestly, age and skill level is nearly irrelevant for me in this argument, except maybe at the NBA level.
Personally, I believe that anyone who has the coordination and skill to stop quickly and make a 15-foot shot has the coordination and skill to shoot successfully from 19’9. Once the college three-point line moves back to 22′, then there will be some separation between midrange only shooters and three-point shooters, but distance is a minimal factor to me.
I believe that the bigger factors in shooting are defense and decisions. A midrange shot moves a player closer to a defender. This requires a player to shoot quicker and possibly higher to avoid the defense. Secondly, the midrange shot, especially off the dribble, adds complexity to the decision, which impacts shooting percentages.
For my shooters at the three-point line, shooting is an if/then decision: “If I am open, then I shoot.” Nothing else matters; not distance, not a teammate being open, not the time on the shot clock, not the score, etc. (until the last two minutes, maybe). This reduces the decision-making.
When a player attacks, as in the drop coverage that Taylor described, there are more decisions. First, am I open? Second, is the roller open? Third, do I have a kick out to a shooter? Fourth, when do I stop and shoot? Can I ge to the rim? Fifth, do I shoot a jump shot or a floater? These decisions, and possibilities, absolutely affect shooting percentages. This is a major reason that players shoot 80& on this pull-up jump shot in drills as the designated shooter, but shoot 40% during games.
Therefore, the closer shot is more difficult and more complex. The three-point shot is further from the basket, which lowers percentages slightly for every foot further back, but players are compensated for this added difficulty with an extra point. There is no similar compensation for the added difficulty and complexity of the closer shot.
From the time that I coached u9s in 2001, this has been my thinking: If we have to shoot a jump shot instead of a layup, I want the shooter to catch facing the basket, and I want to shoot three-pointers because I feel that the added difficulty of the distance is easier to overcome than the difficulty and complexity of a midrange shot AND the added difficulty is rewarded with an extra point. With u9s, I believed that any jump shot was a low percentage shot regardless of distance; therefore, why not get an extra point for makes? If we shot 25% on 3s, and 30% on two-point jump shots, that is a big win for three-point shots despite poor shooting either way. That’s just math.
As an example, our offense last year scored .84 points per possession, which ranked as “excellent”. Our half-court offense scored .795 points per possession. We scored 1.018 PPP on three-point shots, and .707 PPP on midrange shots, and we had one of the best, smoothest midrange shooters in the country. Our defense gave up .698 PPP and .668 in half-court. Opponents scored .542 PPP on midrange shots, and .87 on three-point shots.
The debate, then, changes from “Are midrange bad shots?” (yes) to “Are midrange shots bad because of bad shooters or because players do not practice?” (?). I would argue that they are bad shots because the are more difficult and more complex than three-point shots because of proximity to defense and more possibilities.
As defenses work harder to take away the three-point shot, the midrange may increase in value because midrange shots move further from the defense. This, in a sense, is one of Taylor’s arguments (as well as arguing that Derozan’s midrange game has gravity that opens up better three-point shots for teammates). At lower levels, I do not believe that we have reached this point, except against a few specific defenses.
I do not outlaw the midrange shot, and we practice midrange shots (primarily because of practice variability and confidence from watching ball go through the basket). However, we hunt catch-and-shoot three point shots because they are better, easier shots that are worth more points. It is common sense to me, which is the reason that I do not understand the angst that many have, as they remote over the long lost midrange shot that is a low efficiency, more difficult, more complex shot. Is it useful on occasions? Yes. Can a great shooter succeed with his midrange game? If he is KD’s and Kawhi’s level, sure. But, as paradoxical as it seems to many, I believe that it is easier for a player to shoot 40% on catch-and-shoot three-pointers than 60% on midrange shots, and maybe we’re taking the easy out, but that seems like smart basketball to me.
Making More Free Throws
Wired examined free-throw shooting with Steve Nash, but several conclusions are contentious.
On paper, the free throw could not be more straightforward. It’s a direct, unguarded shot at a hoop 18 inches across, 10 feet off the ground, and 15 feet away. Like a carefully controlled experiment, the conditions are exactly the same every single time.
This makes sense. The external conditions are the same on every free throw, which differs from other sports, where wind or field conditions or court surface may affect performance. However, all the conditions are not the same on every shot because the shooter is never the same: internal conditions differ. Fatigue, confidence, pressure, and more differ from shot to shot. When a player shoots two free throws, does the result of the first shot affect the second? How many players shoot the second shot more freely after a make than a miss? Is a shot in the first quarter the same as a shot in the last minute?
Larry Silverberg, a dynamicist at North Carolina State University, has used this fact to study the free throw in remarkable detail. “It’s the same for every single player, so you can actually look at the shot very scientifically,” he says.
Again, it is not the same for every player, but beyond internal conditions differing from shot to shot, conditions differ from shot to shot between players. A 4’6 4th grader shoots differently than a 7’0 professional. Despite the similarity in location, they are not the same shots.
To dispatch the ball the same way every time requires a player to commit to memory the smooth, coordinated movement of multiple limbs and joints, from their knees, elbows, and wrists to the tiny points of articulation in their fingers and toes.
Memory? In what way? I certainly do not remember in any kind of conscious way the manner in which my shoulder, elbow and wrist link together to propel the ball. If I attempted to find this memory when shooting the ball, I would fail.
The average free throw percentage across the NBA, WNBA, and NCAA could almost certainly increase, Silverberg says, but it probably won’t. Not unless coaches make it a priority by hiring personal trainers to work with all of their team members individually,
First, free throw percentages are improving almost year by year. Second, I imagine every professional player has a personal trainer already.
The problem with free-throw shooting is largely the practice design. Because we view the shot as being the same every time, we use constant block practice. However, during games, we do not shoot 100 free throws in a row. We shoot one or two free throws. Players must step to the line and make one free throw. Making 90/100 when shooting consecutively is impressive, but it is different than shooting one free throw, playing the game, shooting another free throw, etc.
My team shot 72.6% from the free-throw line this season, which was 9th in the nation, despite being led in attempts by a player who arrived last summer and said she was not a shooter. I obviously do not attend every team’s practices, but I doubt anyone practices free-throw shooting less than we do. Throughout the season, we never had a dedicated block of time for “free-throw shooting” at a single practice. We never shot free throws with a consequence of sprints during practice (our 90% free-throw shooters run when they miss a free throw during individual workouts). We never line up and watch a player shoot a free throw or end practice with someone having to make a free throw or any of the other things that I have seen at practices over the years. We shoot a lot at practice; just not a lot of free throws. Our free-throw practice occurs almost entirely during scrimmages.
Beyond practice design, everyone could improve his or her free-throw shooting by improving one’s routine. Using a routine is a start, and everyone should use a routine at the free-throw line, but there are ways to maximize the routine for better performance.
Closing the gap between training and competition, Beilock says, is a matter of practicing under conditions that simulate high-pressure scenarios: Training under a watchful eye, or competing against the clock.
I have argued this point with Dr. Beilock since she wrote her book Choke – through emails to her, in class presentations for sports psychology courses, on blogs, etc. She is a psychologist who sees things through the lens of pressure affecting performance; I see non-representative practice. In some ways, we are talking about the same thing.
However, in her book, she suggested running sprints for a miss to simulate the pressure of a game free throw. This is such a standard practice that bad free throw shooters mentally account for the running; it is something they expect, rather than something that adds pressure. Also, running a sprint cannot approximate the same pressure as a game-wining shot. To me, this is a token gesture, which is the reason that our good free-throw shooters run when they miss in an individual workout: it is to ensure that they concentrate on their free throws. Our bad free-throw shooters shoot more because the shooting practice, not the running, seems like the best way to improve one’s shooting.
The development of a 40% three-point shooter
This week, I texted with a current player about her former teammate who I am recruiting. I had heard that her teammate was a shooter, and I texted her to confirm. She responded that the teammate was the best shooter on her high school team, which prompted my question: “Better than you?” My player shoots over 40% from the three-point line on more than five three-point field goal attempts per game, has legitimate NBA range, and shoots over 90% from the free-throw line. I have rebounded for her as she shot over 150 three-pointers without missing two in a row. Her response:
Now, that is hard to believe. I remember walking into the gym on her first day at the college and watching her shoot. I knew that I had signed a good player, but she looked better than I thought. During her freshman season, though, she struggled down the stretch, and her three-point percentage dipped to 33% by year’s end. I had to look up her percentage, as I would have guessed that she shot 37-39% during her first year.
In our text exchange, I expressed my surprise, but looked at the positive, at least from my standpoint (recruiting! marketing!):
She can shoot. I have not taught her anything. I refused to allow my assistants last season to say a word about her shooting. We have worked to improve her balance. We practice shooting when tired. We try to shoot good shots.
As a coach or trainer, I have done nothing technical. I have never said a word to her about how she holds the ball, bends her knees, or follows through. I have not told her to turn or not to turn. I have not provided a single word of common shooting instruction.
I have several shooters on my team; as I write this, one leads the nation in three-point shooting percentage. When I have talked to her, and we have spent a considerable amount of quality time together recently due to some trips to the emergency room and follow-up doctor visits, she has told me that she never considered herself to be a shooter previously. She recommended a friend to me as a potential recruit, and called her friend a much better shooter. I have taken her out of two games for passing up open shots.
Another player arrived as a very good mid-range pull-up shooter, but was never much of a three-point shooter; she started her freshman season shooting 18% from the three-point line through the first 10 games. She’s closing in on 100 made three-point field goals in her two seasons and shooting over 36% on James Harden-like attempts. I have not said a word to her about her technique in two years, despite her constant questioning. I told her when she arrived that she had to be a three-point shooter. Despite working out with her more than anyone over the last two years, I have said almost nothing related to her shooting technique. Everything is focused on balance, footwork, and confidence.
As the player said in the text, my effect on their shooting is primarily confidence (wrote about this previously). I encourage three-point shots. We run plays to get three-point shots. I do not take out players for missing three-point shots. When players arrive, I explain that if they are not a three-point shooter now, they better become one. We have a player who told me in the summer that she was a non-shooter; she was sub-40% from the free-throw line last season before transferring. In our last game, she was 2/2 from the three-point line and 8/11 from the free-throw line. Confidence.
As I write this, we are 2nd nationally in 3-point field goals, 5th in 3-point field goal percentage, and 12th in free-throw percentage. Yes, I target players who I believe are shooters, but in several cases, it appears that I saw them as shooters before they did. I do not instruct a lot on shooting technique. We shoot a lot during practice (although we rarely shoot free throws), and we value shooting. We do not have a Dr. Dish in our gym. Players shoot together and rebound for each other.
The biggest factor in their development, I believe, is comfort and confidence. They know they can shoot and will not be punished. I challenge them to shoot from further out. I yell at them to shoot as soon as they cross the volleyball line. I take out players for not shooting open shots rather than taking out players for missing shots. We have a culture of shooting, I suppose, and the culture — from the type of practice, to the extra shots, to the comfort and confidence — is how we develop 40% three-point shooters.
String Shooting Progression
Progression of string shooting drills to practice movement in relation to dribble penetration, shooting off the move, and passing off the dribble.
Team
Continuous Drills
Live
2-Ball Transition Shooting Drills
Pass one ahead on the near-side wing for a 45-degree three-pointer, then penetrate to the middle and pass to the opposite corner for a corner three-pointer.
Drag screen in transition; pass one for the layup and shoot the second off the dribble.