Basketball and the starting 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For basketball, I can see having strong players coming off the bench and having more of a role player starting over this stronger player. The example would be if there are other strong players/scorers among the starters. When you need to rotate kids out to give them a break or, gasp, do the developmentally appropriate thing and at young ages make sure everyone plays, having a strong player/scorer coming off the bench may ensure the team can still score or be competitive during the game regardless of what units are on the floor.

It just depends on the team. One of my dcs FCYBL teams this winter--their two best players were also the tallest and next tallest kid. So the next-tallest kid was the back up center and never started, even though he was arguably the 2nd or 3rd best player on the team. We had weaker guards (including my kid! oh well). So it can just depend on the talent mix on the team.

The why doesn't the coach start one at the 4 or have a system with two 5s and three guards?

Probably because the rest of the team was tiny, or the starting center would get in foul trouble, or both.

If both are the best players, they should be playing the majority of the time even if that means they are on the floor together. If my kid was the second best on a team and had to play a backup role, they would be switching teams as soon as possible

Fcybl teams are pretty much based on zip code and you can't switch once the season starts.

There are year round aau teams and you can get a zip code exception for the next season

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another AAU game day with DD not getting to start. She gets to play but she wants to be recognized as a starter. How do I change her thinking that it doesn’t matter? Who is making her think she’s less than?? Do I speak to the coach on this?

She’ll start when the coach thinks she is better than the other girl who currently starts in her position. There is nothing you can do about that, and there is nothing to change about your daughter’s dislike of it - everyone wants to be the best! She can ask her coach what she needs to do to improve enough to be a starter. She isn’t “less than” as a human being, and I sure hope she doesn’t think she is! But someone else plays her position better than she does (or so the coach thinks). She can let it motivate her, or she can decide she’d be happier on another team. Both perfectly fine!

This season my son was recruited to a new AAU team. It’s one of the top teams in the area and he doesn’t start. Now he’s the best player on his team and he knows it. I tell him to just play well when he gets in and don’t worry about starting. I am kind of happy that he isn’t starting because he now has more incentive to work on his game and increase his basketball IQ.

It may be political you just have to observe. My son is the kid in the example above. He isn’t a starter, but I’m his dad and without having any bias’, I know he’s the best player on his team.
Saturday he had a game against a team they previously lost to by 30 and he came off the bench with 23 points scored more points than anyone else on either team and we lost by 1 point. Other teams have been interested in him and I think he’s the best player on his team. The coach just doesn’t seem to know it or there may be some kind of politics. I like the team, but there are some other things about it I don’t like and if things don’t get better, we are gone after this summer.

So is the issue that he doesn't start? Is that it or is he not getting enough playing time? That's the thing--teams should have excellent players regardless of whether they start or not. But I am no expert in the matter.

Maybe there are things the coach sees that have nothing to do with skill: Is the player disruptive in practice; respectful to coaches, to other players, to officials; take constructive criticism well; showing up on time to events etc.? Are the player's parents an issue?

Well behaved kid. On time and doesn’t miss practices. Kind of new to the team so maybe the coach needs to observe him more. I could care less if he starts. My issue is that he’s playing a position that he won’t be able to play at the next level and definitely not at any level higher than that. If I conclude this isn’t the best place for him developmentally over the next few months, we’re out!

So your kid is playing the 4 or 5 off the bench?
Does the coach have a player on the team?

Yeah 4 and 5, but should be playing 1,2, and 3. Again, he’s the new player and maybe the coach needs to get more familiar with his skill set. We are giving it a try, but my kid can play and gets a lot of interest from other teams. A few weeks ago a coach from one of the top teams in the area spoke to me, I didn’t entertain the conversation because of how far the commute to practice would be, but if things are looking good in the near future we will explore some options.

And the coach has a kid who isn’t the star or even a starter, but this could play a part in how many kids he wants in the rotation for certain positions. Idk.

There certainly could be political stuff going on, as so often there is with sports. I'll fold the parent's kid into the mix. It's also most plausible that the coach reduces complaints if the new kid doesn't start, keeps people coming back if he doesn't start a likely short-timer, and/or simply doesn't recognize talent.

Having acknowledged that, managing social dynamics plays a substantial role in maximizing a team's performance. I'm not a huge fan of John Feinstein, particularly given his reliance on anecdotes and his own impressions that flow through his books. But one of my favorite books by anyone is one of his lowest-profile ones: Forever's Team, published in 1990. This focused upon the 1977-78 Duke Men's Basketball Team, coached by Bill Foster, which lost in the NCAA Championship Game to Kentucky. The reviewer says it's a dubious premise that this runner-up team should be the subject of a book, and certainly there's an element of fandom in Duke alum (1976) Feinstein's portrayal of the team.

But the book's real value revolves around the details he gleaned from interviews with people associated with the team before, during, and after the 1978 run. One heartbreaking part revolved around who would start at point guard: John Harrell or Bob Bender. This article summarizes the dynamic and gives its own spin.

John Harrell, a native of Durham, transferred in from local HBCU North Carolina-Central. Bob Bender, a high-profile recruit, transferred in after a year at Indiana. They were the two prime competitors for the role of starting point guard (the third was an experienced walk-on and accepted Harrell and Bender were better players).

Harrell ended up being named the starter for the 1978 season and played very well over Duke's run. Feinstein's book details feelings of some that the coaching staff had really wanted Bender to start, but that Harrell had forestalled that. When Harrell suffered an injury after the season, there was some question about whether he was ready when training camp started for the 1978-79 season. The staff named Bender the starter the first day of practice, and Harrell felt marginalized. Harrell, a brilliant mathematician, did not play the 1979-80 season (his final one of eligibility). A brilliant mathematician, Harrell went on to a successful career with Verizon as a consultant before he passed away of an aneurysm in 2008.

Now Bender was a terrific player, and he eventually went on to serve on Krzyzewski before being HC at Washington I think and then worked for a few NBA teams. He's a basketball guy. But there's a real question about how the PG situation was handled. We can say Bender was the better player and Harrell had to deal, but that's not always what's best for the team. Feinstein details how hurt Harrell was (emotionally rather than physically), and that division arose as others agreed Harrell was not treated well. Furthermore, I recall Bender himself told Feinstein that he would have accepted Harrell starting ahead of him again in 1979-80. Finally, for all of Bill Foster's skill as a coach and decency as a person, he was also sensitive and at the same time not so skilled at managing perceptions and egos.

Harrell may have been the better choice to start for team cohesion. It may be that his contributions, both actual in 1978 and potential moving forward, were devalued. It may be that more emotional intelligence would have been welcome from various figures. But in the end, these kinds of things also go into who "starts" if you're going to maximize team performance. You can play a better talent and the team performs worse if the teammates do not respond well to that talent. Players are human. It's "politics" as well, but more benign and perhaps legitimate when it comes to helping the team win.

We are talking about a kid from the bench who scores 23 points in a the most competitive game the team has played in all year. The next highest scorer on the team had 7 points. Most parents should understand that the object is to win at the AAU level. As a parent I don’t think even care about winning. I just want my kid to become a better ball player. I did sign him up to be used so the other kids can get better and he doesn’t.

The way things have been going, he’s not in the best position to help his team. I’ve seen coaches who purposely are indifferent when it comes to the developmental of some kids. At this stage I’m giving the coach the benefit of the doubt. We will honor our AAU season commitment and that will give time to evaluate the situation. Actually, after last games performance, the coach should understand that he needs to play my son more if he wants the team to play at a higher level. However, there still is the problem of him playing in the wrong position.

[Anonymous]

Everyone wants their kid to play the 1, 2 or 3 to develop their skills. You have to try and make sure he will be playing one of those roles on the next team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For basketball, I can see having strong players coming off the bench and having more of a role player starting over this stronger player. The example would be if there are other strong players/scorers among the starters. When you need to rotate kids out to give them a break or, gasp, do the developmentally appropriate thing and at young ages make sure everyone plays, having a strong player/scorer coming off the bench may ensure the team can still score or be competitive during the game regardless of what units are on the floor.

It just depends on the team. One of my dcs FCYBL teams this winter--their two best players were also the tallest and next tallest kid. So the next-tallest kid was the back up center and never started, even though he was arguably the 2nd or 3rd best player on the team. We had weaker guards (including my kid! oh well). So it can just depend on the talent mix on the team.

The why doesn't the coach start one at the 4 or have a system with two 5s and three guards?

Probably because the rest of the team was tiny, or the starting center would get in foul trouble, or both.

Pat Ewing and Dikembe started together.

Well, a random dad coach doesn't necessarily have the acumen of an
NBA coach!

Giannis and Lopez both start

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For basketball, I can see having strong players coming off the bench and having more of a role player starting over this stronger player. The example would be if there are other strong players/scorers among the starters. When you need to rotate kids out to give them a break or, gasp, do the developmentally appropriate thing and at young ages make sure everyone plays, having a strong player/scorer coming off the bench may ensure the team can still score or be competitive during the game regardless of what units are on the floor.

It just depends on the team. One of my dcs FCYBL teams this winter--their two best players were also the tallest and next tallest kid. So the next-tallest kid was the back up center and never started, even though he was arguably the 2nd or 3rd best player on the team. We had weaker guards (including my kid! oh well). So it can just depend on the talent mix on the team.

The why doesn't the coach start one at the 4 or have a system with two 5s and three guards?

Probably because the rest of the team was tiny, or the starting center would get in foul trouble, or both.

Pat Ewing and Dikembe started together.

Well, a random dad coach doesn't necessarily have the acumen of an
NBA coach!

Giannis and Lopez both start

Looking at aau tournaments, plenty of teams are starting two athletic bigmen.

[Anonymous]

The wrong position? I simply don't understand this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wrong position? I simply don't understand this.

Its not that complicated. No one wants their kid to play center and most people don't want their kid to be a power forward.
They don't get enough skills practice at those positions, and hardly any kidd have the genetics to play those positions after puberty. The kids who get stuck standing under the basket don't improve their ball handling and shooting enough to move to another position when they top out at 5'10. A coach's kid who had played PG for years can move to play center if he grows tall.

[Anonymous]

If your kid has point guard skills and the coach keeps playing him at center, tell the kid to push the ball up court in transition and to not immediately pass the ball to a guard to bring it up. Push the ball up and make the guards run with him. If the coach has something to say about it, f him. That’s not the way your kid plays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wrong position? I simply don't understand this.

Its not that complicated. No one wants their kid to play center and most people don't want their kid to be a power forward.
They don't get enough skills practice at those positions, and hardly any kidd have the genetics to play those positions after puberty. The kids who get stuck standing under the basket don't improve their ball handling and shooting enough to move to another position when they top out at 5'10. A coach's kid who had played PG for years can move to play center if he grows tall.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wrong position? I simply don't understand this.

Its not that complicated. No one wants their kid to play center and most people don't want their kid to be a power forward.
They don't get enough skills practice at those positions, and hardly any kidd have the genetics to play those positions after puberty. The kids who get stuck standing under the basket don't improve their ball handling and shooting enough to move to another position when they top out at 5'10. A coach's kid who had played PG for years can move to play center if he grows tall.

The 4 and 5 can switch off low and high post (the nail). The Princeton offense uses big men in this way. From the nail the 4/5 can distribute the ball, drive, shoot, or can be part of pick and roll/pop actions. Meanwhile the other players can be setting screens and cutting back door. But it’s more difficult to coach that kind of offense, and AAU coaches will likely go with what’s simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wrong position? I simply don't understand this.

Its not that complicated. No one wants their kid to play center and most people don't want their kid to be a power forward.
They don't get enough skills practice at those positions, and hardly any kidd have the genetics to play those positions after puberty. The kids who get stuck standing under the basket don't improve their ball handling and shooting enough to move to another position when they top out at 5'10. A coach's kid who had played PG for years can move to play center if he grows tall.

The 4 and 5 can switch off low and high post (the nail). The Princeton offense uses big men in this way. From the nail the 4/5 can distribute the ball, drive, shoot, or can be part of pick and roll/pop actions. Meanwhile the other players can be setting screens and cutting back door. But it’s more difficult to coach that kind of offense, and AAU coaches will likely go with what’s simple.

IME, dad coaches mostly coach what gets their child the most playtime and time on the ball. Especially at the younger ages, the players stuck in the 4 or 5 do not develop. Most of the churn on teams at the younger ages are kids trying to avoid playing those positions.

[Anonymous]

I feel so seen! My chlld always played 1 or 2 in rec, but for his FCYBL team he always played center. Every game! He would score 20+ points in a rec game on Saturday and go on Sunday for the FCYBL game and score zero points. His coach wanted him to rebound and then immediately pass the ball to the PG (his son! of course!). Even when he was right under the basket and should be putting the ball back up. The offense they used didn't involve the 4 or 5 *at all*. Not even to set screens. He didn't improve much all season because he barely touched the ball in games and even in practices--the coach would be running through plays or the offense and he and the other big kid would just be told to stand there.

Looking for a new team for next winter!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel so seen! My chlld always played 1 or 2 in rec, but for his FCYBL team he always played center. Every game! He would score 20+ points in a rec game on Saturday and go on Sunday for the FCYBL game and score zero points. His coach wanted him to rebound and then immediately pass the ball to the PG (his son! of course!). Even when he was right under the basket and should be putting the ball back up. The offense they used didn't involve the 4 or 5 *at all*. Not even to set screens. He didn't improve much all season because he barely touched the ball in games and even in practices--the coach would be running through plays or the offense and he and the other big kid would just be told to stand there.

Looking for a new team for next winter!

Yep, this is why no one wants their younger player playing under the basket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel so seen! My chlld always played 1 or 2 in rec, but for his FCYBL team he always played center. Every game! He would score 20+ points in a rec game on Saturday and go on Sunday for the FCYBL game and score zero points. His coach wanted him to rebound and then immediately pass the ball to the PG (his son! of course!). Even when he was right under the basket and should be putting the ball back up. The offense they used didn't involve the 4 or 5 *at all*. Not even to set screens. He didn't improve much all season because he barely touched the ball in games and even in practices--the coach would be running through plays or the offense and he and the other big kid would just be told to stand there.

Looking for a new team for next winter!

This is what happened to our tall kid. He’s too old at this point to do anything about it. And if you ask the coach about it, you are seen as “difficult” parents. So basically, if you don’t coach, your kid gets stuck.

[Anonymous]

A lot of these coaches at AAU are not qualified to coach. They are just glorified parent coaches. So what’s best for your kid. Waiting it out only means you wasted a whole season. Think like a business. It’s sunk cost so if the season not going well leave and join another team or spend time training.