With Major League Baseball finishing up its All-Star break yesterday, ESPN's Baseball Tonight aired a special "Pitchers' Roundtable" on TV last night. Having watched some of this program, I was thoroughly impressed by the knowledge and wisdom shared by the five former pitchers. The most important lesson I took away from the program applies not just to baseball players and coaches, but to all players and coaches as well as all students and teachers. The lesson, namely, is: "Different people have different learning styles."
There is a lot in society and pop culture about "different strokes for different folks". Yet, out on the court, in the classroom, and out in the workplace, there tends to be a focus on doing things one way. As this cliche goes, "there is one right way". Personally, I dislike such a philosophy, although I understand the practicality of it. If there is one "right" way of doing things, then evaluation of performance and progress is much easier to conduct. Anything that deviates from this one "right" way is, by definition, wrong. In the NBA, Phil Jackson and his staff made a living off former assistant coach Tex Winter's triangle offense.
However, the philosophy that "there is only one right way" ignores differing personality types, upbringings, and cultures and discounts the potential of human thought and innovation. Sure, offensive systems such as the triangle offense and the Princeton offense (run by current Cavaliers coach Byron Scott) are proven winners. Yet, the same offense for Phil Jackson that has produced 11 NBA Championships led Kurt Rambis and the Minnesota Timberwolves to a horrid 32-132 record in two seasons, with Rambis being officially fired this week. How could a system so successful for one coach fail another coach?
Well, the Pitchers' Roundtable last night brought up some very interesting points about different baseball pitchers' approaches to practice, game preparation, and in-game focus. Future Hall of Fame candidate Curt Schilling was known for having a dominant fastball. Oftentimes in baseball, it is believed by fans and players that a good fastball is not something really taught but rather self-developed and arguably something with which pitchers are born. Moreover, pitchers with good fastballs are thought to not need to study for games; rather, they just need to reach back and throw as hard as they can.
Yet, Schilling dispelled these notions. Schilling talked about how he learned to throw a different kind of fastball when he was in the Minor Leagues. This meant replacing a "two-seam" grip of the baseball with a "four-seam" grip. To get used to this, Schilling said he needed lots of practice. As he got older, he said he actually focused more on practicing his fastball as opposed to practicing offspeed pitches, which is what is typically associated with older pitchers who oftentimes have lost speed on their fastballs.
Furthermore, Schilling was a student of baseball statistics. He emphasized that "data doesn't lie". In fact, during his career he had a computer program developed for him to analyze data. Schilling talked about how he had six duffel bags full of notebooks on individual batter tendencies from his years pitching in the big leagues. Schilling admitted that fellow panelist Jamie Moyer was much better at reading hitters during games and making in-game adjustments than Schilling was. This was mainly because Schilling focused on pitching mechanics rather than paying attention to the hitters' gestures at the plate. To compensate, Schilling took very detailed notes and constantly watched footage of batters, including during team flights during the season. Furthermore, Schilling learned the tendencies of all MLB umpires, keeping track of the umpires' schedule so that he knew which umpire would be behind home plate when he pitched. This meant he knew umpires' interpretations of the strike zone (clearly, there is no "one right way" to call a baseball strike zone). He said he also found a website out in Las Vegas that reported total balls and strikes pitch counts of all umpires and how they called games and innings at different hours of the day.
The discussions that Schilling and the other panelists had should resonate with current Cavaliers coach Byron Scott. Coach Scott has a relatively young team with a few veterans. He has implemented the Princeton offense in Cleveland and is looking to regain the defensive edge that the Cavs had under Coach Mike Brown. What Scott needs to keep in mind is that each player has different learning habits and learning tendencies. As such, he needs to be sure to reach out to each of these players' styles. As it stands, the most successful Cavs' coaches--Bill Fitch, Lenny Wilkens, Mike Fratello, and Mike Brown--all found ways to reach out to different players. In the case of Fratello, he ran a slower paced offense with a team comprised of mainly veteran players and then sped the offense up for a team comprised of more younger personnel.
Meanwhile, former Cavs Coach George Karl also had an instance where he helped turn the team around when he adjusted his coaching style to his personnel. At one point, the team fell as low as 2-19. Coach Karl had remained committed to defense and defense alone despite the hesitancy of the team's players, including top offensive star World B. Free. After Karl and Free had a private meeting to help iron things out, the team made a nice recovery in order to qualify for the 1985 NBA Playoffs. After making it to the playoffs, the team--which had earlier questioned everything about Coach Karl--carried him off the court in joy and respect. In the end, the Cavs team that could not seem to get anything right ended up putting up a nice challenge in the first round to the eventual NBA runners-up, the Boston Celtics. Aside from Karl and the four aforementioned coaches, no Cavaliers coach has led the team to the playoffs. This message should resonate with Scott and any future Cavs coaches.
Following the departure of J.J. Hickson, Scott and the coaching staff need to pay attention to player developmental tendencies. In Hickson's case, he seemed to learn best from shadowing his peers, such as LeBron James. It will be interesting to see how some of the other Cavs develop. Will shadowing be best for them? Do they need physical on-court practice? Or how about video sessions and handwritten notes? Can they study the opposition prior to games, or do some of the players need to make analyses during the game? Can some players discuss what they see with each other in order to combine knowledge and wisdom?
With a young team looking to further develop an identity--which they seemed to lack until acquiring Baron Davis at the trading deadline--it is critical that Scott and staff tap into the learning capabilities of each player. While players such as Kyrie Irving and Tristan Thompson have had temporary labels placed on them--Irving as Chris Paul and Thompson as Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman--the way they learn and develop, both through being coached and self-study, will determine the course of their careers. Labels are a quick picture and outside perspective of things, not the whole story. As baseball star Curt Schilling exemplified, everyone from star players to bench players needs to learn about his/her craft. In the Cavaliers' case, the franchise's attainment of its first NBA Championship depends on this.
However, the philosophy that "there is only one right way" ignores differing personality types, upbringings, and cultures and discounts the potential of human thought and innovation. Sure, offensive systems such as the triangle offense and the Princeton offense (run by current Cavaliers coach Byron Scott) are proven winners. Yet, the same offense for Phil Jackson that has produced 11 NBA Championships led Kurt Rambis and the Minnesota Timberwolves to a horrid 32-132 record in two seasons, with Rambis being officially fired this week. How could a system so successful for one coach fail another coach?
Well, the Pitchers' Roundtable last night brought up some very interesting points about different baseball pitchers' approaches to practice, game preparation, and in-game focus. Future Hall of Fame candidate Curt Schilling was known for having a dominant fastball. Oftentimes in baseball, it is believed by fans and players that a good fastball is not something really taught but rather self-developed and arguably something with which pitchers are born. Moreover, pitchers with good fastballs are thought to not need to study for games; rather, they just need to reach back and throw as hard as they can.
Yet, Schilling dispelled these notions. Schilling talked about how he learned to throw a different kind of fastball when he was in the Minor Leagues. This meant replacing a "two-seam" grip of the baseball with a "four-seam" grip. To get used to this, Schilling said he needed lots of practice. As he got older, he said he actually focused more on practicing his fastball as opposed to practicing offspeed pitches, which is what is typically associated with older pitchers who oftentimes have lost speed on their fastballs.
Furthermore, Schilling was a student of baseball statistics. He emphasized that "data doesn't lie". In fact, during his career he had a computer program developed for him to analyze data. Schilling talked about how he had six duffel bags full of notebooks on individual batter tendencies from his years pitching in the big leagues. Schilling admitted that fellow panelist Jamie Moyer was much better at reading hitters during games and making in-game adjustments than Schilling was. This was mainly because Schilling focused on pitching mechanics rather than paying attention to the hitters' gestures at the plate. To compensate, Schilling took very detailed notes and constantly watched footage of batters, including during team flights during the season. Furthermore, Schilling learned the tendencies of all MLB umpires, keeping track of the umpires' schedule so that he knew which umpire would be behind home plate when he pitched. This meant he knew umpires' interpretations of the strike zone (clearly, there is no "one right way" to call a baseball strike zone). He said he also found a website out in Las Vegas that reported total balls and strikes pitch counts of all umpires and how they called games and innings at different hours of the day.
The discussions that Schilling and the other panelists had should resonate with current Cavaliers coach Byron Scott. Coach Scott has a relatively young team with a few veterans. He has implemented the Princeton offense in Cleveland and is looking to regain the defensive edge that the Cavs had under Coach Mike Brown. What Scott needs to keep in mind is that each player has different learning habits and learning tendencies. As such, he needs to be sure to reach out to each of these players' styles. As it stands, the most successful Cavs' coaches--Bill Fitch, Lenny Wilkens, Mike Fratello, and Mike Brown--all found ways to reach out to different players. In the case of Fratello, he ran a slower paced offense with a team comprised of mainly veteran players and then sped the offense up for a team comprised of more younger personnel.
Meanwhile, former Cavs Coach George Karl also had an instance where he helped turn the team around when he adjusted his coaching style to his personnel. At one point, the team fell as low as 2-19. Coach Karl had remained committed to defense and defense alone despite the hesitancy of the team's players, including top offensive star World B. Free. After Karl and Free had a private meeting to help iron things out, the team made a nice recovery in order to qualify for the 1985 NBA Playoffs. After making it to the playoffs, the team--which had earlier questioned everything about Coach Karl--carried him off the court in joy and respect. In the end, the Cavs team that could not seem to get anything right ended up putting up a nice challenge in the first round to the eventual NBA runners-up, the Boston Celtics. Aside from Karl and the four aforementioned coaches, no Cavaliers coach has led the team to the playoffs. This message should resonate with Scott and any future Cavs coaches.
Following the departure of J.J. Hickson, Scott and the coaching staff need to pay attention to player developmental tendencies. In Hickson's case, he seemed to learn best from shadowing his peers, such as LeBron James. It will be interesting to see how some of the other Cavs develop. Will shadowing be best for them? Do they need physical on-court practice? Or how about video sessions and handwritten notes? Can they study the opposition prior to games, or do some of the players need to make analyses during the game? Can some players discuss what they see with each other in order to combine knowledge and wisdom?
With a young team looking to further develop an identity--which they seemed to lack until acquiring Baron Davis at the trading deadline--it is critical that Scott and staff tap into the learning capabilities of each player. While players such as Kyrie Irving and Tristan Thompson have had temporary labels placed on them--Irving as Chris Paul and Thompson as Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman--the way they learn and develop, both through being coached and self-study, will determine the course of their careers. Labels are a quick picture and outside perspective of things, not the whole story. As baseball star Curt Schilling exemplified, everyone from star players to bench players needs to learn about his/her craft. In the Cavaliers' case, the franchise's attainment of its first NBA Championship depends on this.