Developing Great Shooters

العضوية والمنتجات

• العضوية
• جميع المنتجات
• الكتاب

للمؤسسات

• برنامج تطوير المدربين
• One Club System
• Federation System
• قسم البحث والتطوير

المعسكرات

• المعسكر الصيفي الداخلي
• استضف معسكرًا

من نحن والدعم

• قصتنا وفريقنا
• Alex Sarama
• التواصل والدعم
• برنامج الشركاء

And I think a big one too is this idea that there's some type of optimal shooting form that exists for multiple players. So today we're going to kind of put many of these traditional paradigms under the microscope, and this begins with debunking the very idea I just mentioned, and that is the fact that there is simply no such thing as one optimal technique or techniques that are effective for every shooter.

So if we were to look at the top 10 NBA, WNBA shooters, it would very quickly become apparent that they all shoot in very different ways. And, you know, let's just take examples of 4 players. We got Steph Curry, Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, James Harden.

Well, they all shoot in different ways, and there's no such thing as even one thing that you see that is identical within their shot. Their position of their shooting hand under the ball. Well, James Harden, Reggie Miller, even Ray Allen, it wasn't completely under the center of the ball.

The positioning of the balance hand, the angle of their elbow, the follow-through, different in all instances. So what we've seen traditionally is coaches, shooting coaches, have maybe seen techniques that have been successful for particular players and believe that these things are kind of automatics and musts which every other shooter should kind of supposedly demonstrate.

But when we understand the CLA and just the complexity of human movement and the role of individual constraints in terms of every player being so different, we quickly realize that Every player will come to a shooting coordination that complements their body. And as coaches, we gotta appreciate we don't know what it feels like to be inside a player's body.

So many times when we try and give players these specific techniques, we are actually going against the natural self-organizational tendencies of that specific player. So let's move on to form shooting, and I think this is something we see at every level. And I've had a lot of questions as, could you see form shooting existing within a CLA approach?

My answer would be a categorical no. And the reason why is because within the CLA, we cannot suggest that there is one way to do something or one optimal technique to solve a task. There are individualized ways that tasks can be solved. And even then, you know, this needs to be adaptable because of the constraints and the ever-changing environment within the game.

So when we look at form shooting and maybe the 5 design principles of a nonlinear pedagogy, well, let's start with the fact, number one, representative. It's not representative because, well, there's no, yes, there's no defender, that's obvious, but it's so controlled that players will never even shoot in a game from the distance that they practice form shooting from.

So as such, it's a completely different biomechanical movement solution when you're working on your technique so close to the basket versus When you're actually shooting the jump shot within the game. That's one. Number 2, relevant information movement couplings. Obviously, there's no defense, there's no information for players to couple their shooting coordination to other than the coach's instruction.

So obviously, it abides by that principle. Number 3 would be, let's do the internal versus external focus of attention. Well, because in form shooting, players are shooting based on feedback by the coach, such as how their elbows should look, where their feet should be, it really clashes with all the research we have on the benefits of using external focus of attention.

When we use internal feedback, the research is overwhelming that it's detrimental to skill performance and the performance of a skill. So that's very important to consider. Variability. Now this is an interesting one, and I like and I appreciate that coaches have been talking about trying to make form shooting more variable by changing location, etc.

But still For me, it's having variable form shooting. It's kind of like a misnomer because at the end of the day, it's still form shooting and you're still correcting based on an idealized model. Yes, of course, if you're doing form shooting, it's going to be better if you're changing range, location, and doing different things.

But at the end of the day, it's still form shooting. So I don't believe we can use form shooting. There are alternatives, and that's where when we get to differential learning later on in this podcast, I think that is simply the best alternative to form shooting.

I don't see And I don't use form shooting with my players for all the reasons I've just outlined. Let's have a look now at the differences between a traditional approach to shooting and an approach that is informed by contemporary skill acquisition research. So the first thing is, within a traditional approach, we see drills and correction compared to small-sided games, variability, and a differential learning approach where there's lots of variability.

Players shoot in a different way every time. Predominantly too, We rely on opinions and experience within a dominant approach to inform how we teach shooting. Within a contemporary approach, it's not really teaching shooting, it's creating environments and practice conditions which allow shooting to be enhanced and developed within every player.

And this is all not based on opinion and experience solely because yes, of course, experience is gonna be useful, but it's paired critically with empirical research. And we're gonna get to that later on. There's actually been research conducted specifically on the jump shot in basketball.

Within a traditional approach, we see repetition and perfection versus repetition without repetition. We also see little variability compared to variability being used from the very start, even with beginners or very bad shooters. We try to avoid errors based on an idealized way of shooting within the dominant approach, whereas within a contemporary approach, we might even amplify the error.

So for instance, what I mean by that, if we suspect that there's a self-organizational problem which is leading to a shooter not being effective or functional, Well, we might incorporate that into some type of differential learning task. So maybe it's actually we're amplifying the error and the player's contrasting that to other kind of ways to shoot that they're exploring versus trying to eliminate it completely.

We're just getting— trying to get the player to feel how that solution feels when it's kind of compared with other opportunities, other movement solutions that could be used within the shooting approach. And I'll come on to that in DL. And finally, there's no autonomy within the traditional approach.

Not just in the practice tasks, but how the players are kind of allowed to shoot. Whereas with a contemporary approach, it's full of autonomy because we are not imposing these very specific positions upon the players. And this is where I recommend exercising extreme caution in picking and choosing the application of a CLA in some parts and then not using it in others.

And when I first started using the CLA, I did not use it in shooting. The reason why is I just didn't know how, and I could obviously see how valuable the CLA was, but I just couldn't get my head over the fact that we didn't need to do traditional things and teach shooting explicitly.

So this was 4 years ago. And then over the last few years, especially when I've been in Italy, now shooting is probably the area I'd say I'm most confident in. And I've spent enormous time working with players of all levels. And if you're a coach and you watch any of the college prep games, I think one of the trademarks of our team was the fact that every player could shoot 3s.

And we developed really good shooters who, even in the space of one year, we had one player who came in who had shot 19% from 3 points the season before us, and he became a 38% shooter in one season. Now, of course, I don't want to say the reason why that happened was solely because of what we did in practice.

You know, we need far more empirically based research. I don't want to suggest that it was just because of that, but by thinking differently, we can get very different results when it comes to shooting. This is what's needed, because right now we really don't see many shooters at all who kind of eclipse the 40% plus mark when it comes to 3-point shooting.

And I believe in the future, shooters could do that if they practice in representative settings and good practice environments underpinned by research from a good age and over, you know, a number of years. And that will obviously do enormous things for the game of basketball and how it's played.

What are the empirical foundations behind kind of what I'm speaking about today on the podcast? Well, in episode 2, I outlined evidence-based coaching and an ecological approach, and I spoke about dynamical systems theory. And this, of course, was pioneered by the work of Nikolai Bernstein, who over 100 years ago in the Soviet Union, he was commissioned to investigate blacksmiths and specifically looking at how their technique and how they could perhaps become more efficient.

Now, at the time, the Soviet authorities held the premise that the best blacksmiths who were the most efficient had the same repeatable techniques. And Bernstein completely kind of— his findings proved that that was actually incorrect. And what he noticed was that the expert blacksmiths had even more variability than the beginners.

Let's immediately take that to basketball terms and shooting. So what we see a lot is the idea of Coaches insisting that players use the same repeatable techniques over and over again, but we cannot do that in the game. That's actually detrimental to good shooting performance because we need players to be flexible and adaptable.

Why? Well, the constraints, as I highlighted on episode 5 when I outlined the CLA, constraints are ever-changing. The environment is unpredictable. It's a dynamic environment, and if players can only shoot in one very kind of similar way, then it's going to be very difficult to adapt when a defender is closing out quickly, or there is a much bigger defender.

We need adaptive shooters. So a lot of Bernstein's work looked specifically at the idea of degrees of freedom. And all this means is, picture right now that you've maybe got a glass of water or your phone next to you. If you were to pick it up and put it down 3 times in a row, the degrees of freedom within your body, the fingers, your wrist flexion, abduction, Your shoulder flexion contraction, it's going to move slightly differently every time.

And what Bernstein specifically looked at is there are so many degrees of freedom in the human body, so many. So how is it that complex tasks like shooting, players actually solve the degrees of freedom? So what Bernstein actually looked at is how can players solve the degrees of freedom problem by coming and self-organizing to a movement solution such as a jump shot, Which is functional.

And this is where Bernstein's research was just so pioneering because he found that at the same time, it's physically impossible to repeat the same technique. So even in a task such as a blacksmith striking their hammer, there was enormous variability. The constraints were changing.

So think about a sport like basketball where it's much more of an open environment and we need players to achieve the same outcome, AKA shooting a ball with a good arc to provide a nice release angle and angle of entry into the basket.

But how players do that is going to be different every time. And this is the essence of Bernstein's repetition without repetition. So understanding degrees of freedom is key because I mentioned what it is, but how players solve the degrees of freedom problem and become a more adaptive shooter rests in players figuring out how to increase the movement possibilities that are available to them.

In other words, We call this increasing the solution space using degrees of freedom values that they may not have harnessed before when shooting. So that could mean maybe they're able to bend their wrist in a different way. Maybe they're able to put their shoulder at a slightly different angle.

They're able to coordinate their lower body with their extremities in the upper body in a different way. So think about how we can do that. And if we are using these traditional drills where it's spot shooting or form shooting, the degrees of freedom you know, that players are using to shoot, well, they're not exposed to a wide range of degrees of freedom values.

It's gonna be very similar in a small kind of solution manifold. Whereas what we want is to open up the system degrees of freedom, get players exploring how they interact with their body, because if they wanna be an adaptive shooter and respond to the ever-changing environment, their body is gonna have to move in different ways.

So this is a complete paradigm shift to the approach we've traditionally taken to shooting of trying to get shooters shooting the same way. Using very similar techniques. So now what this naturally leads onto is how can we get players exploring their degrees of freedom and opening up these new degrees of freedom values?

And this is what Bernstein referred to as freezing to freeing. Now I'll give you a practical example to make sense of this. Picture Shaquille O'Neal shooting a free throw. He's a great example of a player who exhibited frozen degrees of freedom values because his shooting coordination was extremely rigid.

And you could just see it, it didn't look fluid. So the answer to developing better shooters in many instances is basically freeing up the degrees of freedom to make them more fluid movers and expanding their solution space. So how we do this, well, obviously the constraint-led approach is an ideal way to do this because of the natural variability that is inherent to CLA practice tasks.

Now, this means in shooting, we need a lot of very specific one-on-ones. Because yes, I do a lot of 2-on-1, 2-on-2, 3-on-3 with a shooting focus. But we need a good amount of repetition out repetition if we really want to positively impact self-organization and give enough opportunities for players to explore their body and open up these degrees of freedom values.

If we do that, naturally we're going to have a more adaptive shooter and they're going to be more successful. It's kind of a completely opposite approach to let's do more repetitions of the same repetitions, and the more you do this, the better you're going to be as a shooter.

We take a very different approach. Yes, we need repetition, but we need varied repetitions in order for players to gain information about how they're moving. And possibly then with this new kind of— with these new movement possibilities, they might shoot in a different way, as opposed to us as the coach pushing them to shoot in a different way.

They come to this kind of conclusion in a much more natural manner. Now, it's also important to consider not just— I very much focused on movements and self-organization. We must consider the perceptual considerations and specifically affordances and their role within shooting. And I think this is where, if we're looking at how a shooter can become more effective, it's not just looking at strategies to impact their movement solutions, but also using activities which enhance their attunement to the affordance landscape.

So what I mean by that is things like shot selection. If a player starts taking better shots, which are higher value, more open shots, well, that could lead to a huge impact on their shooting. their effectivity as a shooter. So the only way we could develop that is in small-sided games.

If we are creating small-sided games where players maybe get extra points for being able to self-organize and find space to shoot a more open shot, then that is naturally gonna encourage them to be more efficient within the game. And obviously this is gonna be different for different players.

For an all-star like Steph Curry, his version of an open shot is gonna be different to another player. However, you know, the base essence applies. I think we cannot only just focus on the movement part of shooting, because still the decision to shoot is important, and we need to think about how we're creating practice environments where this decision presents itself.

What research has actually been done on this to support the ideas that I've been sharing in this episode? So there was a really excellent research paper done in 2016 by Gorman and Maloney in Australia, and the paper was called Representative Design: Does the Addition of a Defender change the execution of a basketball jump shot.

The researchers found that there are significant behavioral measures, and I'm gonna read this excerpt from the paper. These included faster shot execution times, longer jump times, and an increase in the amount of time that the ball spent in the air as it traveled to the basket after being released.

These behavioral changes were accompanied by an overall decline in shooting accuracy of over 20%. Defended shots also tended to elicit greater amounts of movement variability, which when interpreted in conjunction with the other findings, suggests that participants were attempting to adapt their movements to accommodate for the changing demands of the performance environment.

A really interesting paper. I'll obviously link it in the show notes. But often when I introduce the CLA for the first time, I show coaches the alternative to spot shooting. And what people often immediately say is, oh, they're not making as many shots.

This is the whole essence of this. By applying the concepts of representative design to the practice environment, We are providing more opportunities for players to adapt to the game. So if we are not doing this in practice, we are basically leaving shooting and play development up to chance because the only opportunities they get to adapt are in scrimmages or the game itself.

So imagine if we are doing lots of really effectively constrained small-sided games, players could receive more opportunities to adapt within one practice versus even one year training within a traditional approach. Because just of the pure amount of repetition, repetition we could create in a 1-hour session if we're planning it really well.

So obviously this has huge implications for shooting within the basketball world. How I manipulate constraints in shooting, I typically focus on lots of 1-on-1, 1-on-1 plus 1, 2-on-1, and some 2-on-2, and even some, I'll get to it later on, some 3-on-3 with 2 balls.

So we have more shooters, more time on task. Obviously what we have to think about in shooting is Can we encourage players to shoot more as opposed to things like driving and finishing? But also, we don't just want to have activities where it's solely a shooting outcome, because shooting in the game, if we really want to have a good amount of representative learning design, well, other things will happen as players shoot.

They might have to navigate a pick and roll. They might have to come off an off-ball screen. They might have to drive, kick, get back out to space. They might have to receive, get open to receive some type of pass. They might have to handle pressure.

So we need a balance. Between CLA activities, which get a lot of repetition out, repetition shooting, and then the CLA activities that are still 1-on-1, 1-on-1 plus 1, 2-on-2, which have a shooting intent, and maybe players receive more points to shoot the 3 than drive, but where they critically still have affordances to do other things, because then it means it's representative and we constantly move along this representative dial.

So let's take a look at what this looks like. I love this game called 1-on-1 Mosquito, and all it is is you have the defender whose job is to be as annoying as possible, pass from different places, shoot it away Changes location range, and the mosquito just passes, and they have to distract the shooter, but they cannot block them.

So what they might do is they might give them a little push. They might put their hands in their eyes. They might clap. They might make a loud noise. It's a fun one. Now, again, we can manipulate constraints, and I, I think it's very important that we don't only do that because the shooter must have the threat of their shot being blocked.

Otherwise, they're responding to irrelevant information. Then we could do it where The defender can block, and the shooter has to find a way to adapt and release their shot before the defender can heavily contest or alter the shot. Lots of different things we could do in Mosquito.

We could even do it 2-on-2 with 2 Mosquitoes, 2 offense who can pass to each other, who can move. We could add a pick and roll. Lots we could do there. One-on-one shooting ladder. This is one of my favorites. We have same premise, but we have a defender on the shooter, and the shooter could maybe be shooting catch and shoots where they receive the pass from the defender.

Or off the dribble. And the shooter has to score a ladder. They gotta score a short, which is a mid-range shot, a medium, which is a 3-point shot, and a long, which is a deep NBA 3. And they're doing that with defense coming from different places.

Now, obviously we don't want heavy contests every time. We want mixes. So sometimes long closeouts, sometimes medium closeouts, sometimes short closeouts, and sometimes even neutral. And the shooter has to create And get separation before they release it. I love ladders, and obviously there's loads we can do in terms of scoring on the ladders.

We could even— a nice constraint I stole from Tyler Lashbrook at the Celtics is he does something called kill confirm, which is great. You get more time on task. So within all these activities, we gotta trick the players a little bit, because if they're playing defense, they wanna do something too.

So maybe they're doing the ladder, and after the first shot, the coach has a second ball. The defender has to relocate and shoot their short, medium, or long based on what they need. And the first shooter now plays defense on them. So it's great because it's a quick transition.

It's more time on task, and it's a way to make playing the defense fun, and the players will do it versus just wanting to be a defender. Next activity idea, I call it 1-on-1 plus 1 blind. We have— this is a very normal advantage start with a defender who is blind with their back to the offensive player, in this instance the shooter.

And let's say the shooter can't score at the rim, they can only shoot 3s. The player will start— the shooter will start with the ball. There'll be a plus 1 always in a different location for more variability, and as soon as the shooter removes the ball from the back, it's a live one-on-one.

So they could dribble and shoot, or they could pass, get open, and receive the ball off the pass. So this is great because we have affordances in here to shoot off the dribble and off the catch. It's gonna be very variable, and we're gonna do it in a different location every time.

That's a really nice example of how we can use the CLA to get good time on task and get a heavy amount of repetition at repetition. Because something I get a lot from players is they want their reps. If we are just doing small-sided games where they don't get many reps, they're not gonna be happy.

These, these first 3 activities are great and players see the value in them because they're shooting representatively. And there's a great quote by Joe Boylan, who is the assistant coach director of player development with the Minnesota Timberwolves. And we both spoke at a clinic in Sweden over the summer, and Joe spoke about how he would prefer less reps, which are more representative reps, than 500 blocked reps with no element of representative learning design.

And I think it's obvious why, but obviously if we can still create good amount of repetition in a representative manner, then it's a no-brainer. The CLA is gonna be more effective. And the last 2 activity ideas, 2-on-1 shooting, 2 offensive players. They could be spaced anywhere outside the 3-point line and they could change location every time.

They could even start in bad spacing and then get out to good spacing or whatever. One defender starts with the ball, passes it, and on the catch, The offense cannot move, but they have 2 passes to get an open shot. So now we got a pass decision in there, which is really important.

The last one is probably my favorite. I call it jungle shooting. It can be played in any format from 2-on-2 to 5-on-5. The version I'm gonna explain right now, picture it as a 3 against 2, and there are 2 basketballs involved. We apply the concept of bursts.

So this means the offense will always play as offense for 60 seconds. With the defenders playing defense for 60 seconds. The offense can only shoot 3s, drive, and pass. They cannot finish at the rim. And the defenders, their job is to force turnovers, contests, block shots, and also to rebound and pass it back in.

So what we see within jungle is there's a great amount of— there's still good repetition, but every rep is not predetermined. So most shooting drills, it's incredibly predetermined, preplanned. That's not like the game of basketball. So we need shooting activities where the shooters don't know when they're gonna shoot.

And this is why jungle is so good. It's even better than 1-on-1 mosquito and 1-on-1 ladder in that regard because of how unpredictable it is. So this is where it's a case of supplementing, you know, those higher kind of repetition CLA tasks with things like jungle.

That's your job as a coach, the art and the science part, combining it and knowing what's good. So within jungle, you know, lots will happen. Maybe if there are 2 balls in at the same time, it obviously means that there's only one player who's temporarily open.

The defenders could trap together, they could do all sorts of things. And it's what we do with the scoring is we offer 2 ways to win. Maybe if the offense scores 8 brads within a minute from 3, they win the game. Or if the defense gets 5 steals or blocks, they win.

Offering 2 ways to win the game, we're incentivizing both our defense and our offense at the same time. So I've introduced those CLA tasks, but this next element may sound a little bit suspect, because what I'm about to say is that the CLA might not be enough.

So what do I mean by that? Well, I definitely don't mean reverting to traditional drills and form shooting, that's for sure. What I mean is that we might have a shooter who really struggles and is not functional, or maybe they're just at a plateau.

They're shooting at 35%. We wanna see if we get them 38%. What we need to do in such instances is give self-organization a push. And we want to get them expanding the solution space even more to see if they might start shooting in a more adaptive manner in a different way.

And this is where another methodology comes into the equation of differential learning. This is the first time I've mentioned it on the podcast. This is not the CLA. It's a coaching approach which was first invented by Professor Wolfgang Schollhorn in 2002. Now, the idea behind differential learning is basically As much variability as possible in the practice task.

So in shooting, this might look like players shooting from different positions, from different stances, with different balls, different angles. As much— it's variability on steroids. That's how I describe it to coaches. Why this is really useful, this is not against the defender. We can obviously mix a defender into it, and I've actually been experimenting with some hybrids where there's a little bit of DL supplemented with some type of contest.

But most DL tasks, there's no opponent. So we're Perception-action coupling, it's not integrated. We've decoupled perception from action for a reason, however, not to suggest or teach that there's a movement, but to allow players to explore their body and to start moving in different ways that might not be realized if we're only using a CLA.

And the reason why is because, you know, some players will have these attractor states where they have very kind of stable shooting coordinations with how they shoot, and we want to maybe get them exploring a different way to shoot. So this is where I believe different experiential learning can really supplement a constraint-led approach because we're increasing the solution space.

So when players come back to a representative activity in a small-sided game, they might now start adapting at a faster rate. Now, very important to note, the founder of DL, Wolfgang Schoenhorn, he does not agree with a CLA perspective, and it is a bit confusing.

But myself and many other people in the skill acquisition community We really think that DL can be useful in supplementing a CLA, but we do not see it as something that should be done instead of the CLA. Whereas Wolfgang very much thinks that DL, from what I understand, should be kind of the de facto motor learning methodology and that the CLA is not underpinned by anything, a robust evidence base.

Obviously, whereas Wolfgang views differential learning as a de facto approach that should be used in the DL space, whereas Myself and many others would see it as being something that can be a really nice complementary method as opposed to a standalone method. You know, just some other ways I've used DL over the years, different landing positions.

So maybe a player shoots and they have to land in front. Maybe they have to land diagonally, backwards, to the side. You know, it's gonna look weird and it's gonna look very different, but the goal is not to shoot like how we're gonna shoot in the game.

Not, it's not like the CLA. The goal is just to create as much noise as possible and basically create a ton of variability. This is also why other fields such as athletic performance are really important within shooting and especially using the CLA in such fields.

Because if we get players moving in different ways, well, that could directly transfer to becoming a better shooter. So this is why I'm so against all these traditional kind of warmups, stretches, routines, because they don't really do anything to increase the solution space and help players move in different ways to become more skillful.

Just think about how we can do things in warmups or even athletic performance sessions, which will actually correlate and integrate within a basketball approach. And one thing I want to kind of make clear is that we've got to be careful of heavily contested shooting games.

And again, this kind of links back to what I spoke about with the games approach versus the CLA. What we've seen a lot of in the past is just these games approach activities played the same way every time with very kind of heavily contested shooting games.

I do heavily contested shooting games too. But the constraints are changing, and often it won't always be a heavily contested shot every time. And the reason why is either the challenge point is too high for many players, it can be extremely frustrating. And I learned that the hard way at college prep when I first kind of was experimenting with loads of different kind of small-sided games.

But also, those actually aren't the shots we're trying to take in the game. So we need a mix. We need, for adaptability, some heavy contests, but then activities where the type of contests are changing. And even then, things where there isn't an opportunity to shoot.

Instead of saying that the players must shoot within the task, we give them an opportunity to pass. And that's key because we need players to be attuned to affordances and understanding that sometimes the shot is not gonna be a good decision. So instead of just forcing it and taking a bad shot, we give them an opportunity to pass and maybe they can retrigger, get open again to try and find a better one.

And I think that's a really important consideration for practice design. So let's look at the takeaways here. You know, I referenced Nikolai Bernstein's work early on, and that was almost a century ago, which is hard to believe because still in the present day, we see practice environments at all levels, from NBA to grassroots, where these ideas are not kind of widespread.

And if anything, it's the opposite, where variability is not encouraged but reduced through the approaches of the practice design and coaches still trying to get players shooting in very specific ways, which is detrimental. And we gotta remember that shooting is not exempt from these ideas.

It's the CLA applies to every area of basketball, not just team offense or something of the sort. It applies to absolutely everything. I think this also has interesting considerations to how we approach shooting technology. I didn't speak about that today, but things like Noah, things like shooting machines, in my opinion, we need to rethink as to how we use such technologies.

And I'm not saying that something like Noah isn't conducive. It's the way the information is presented to the players. It actually makes players risk making them less adaptive and therefore worse shooters because of how they become so reliant on feedback after every single rep.

So I think the technology can be very useful, but if we use that feedback in a way that aligns more with contemporary skill acquisition research. And I think the last thing is just think about how we communicate this to players. So especially things like DL, I would not advocate for if you don't have a relationship of trust with a player going in immediately with those ideas.

It's too much. Is too extreme and it's just gonna be too uncomfortable for them. I think the CLA is a great entry point because they understand it, they see the value to it, and then we can get to more DL tasks as they become more familiar with this approach.

If you have any questions from today, as always, get in touch on social media. I really wanted to do this one because I've seen so many misconceptions of shooting and how to develop it. And this is why I feel so passionately about the potential we have to drastically improve shooting within the basketball world by following some of these ideas.

So thanks for listening and hope to see you soon on another episode of the Transforming Basketball Podcast. Thanks for tuning into this episode of the Transforming Basketball Podcast. If you would like to learn more about the work we do, head to www.transformingbball.com to access our free resources and help spread these ideas throughout the basketball world.

If you enjoyed this episode, then please subscribe and leave a rating or review on your favorite podcast platform. We will gladly answer any questions from today's episode via our social media platforms. See you next time on the Transforming Basketball Podcast.