Volleyball Coaching Life-Heuristics

In reading Joe Maddon’s Book, The Book of Joe, (Joe Maddon 2022), I was able to gain valuable insight into his rarified world of managing a professional baseball team. As the book had done previously (https://polymathtobe.blogspot.com/2023/06/volleyball-coaching-life-five-levels.html) I started  thinking about a topic that he had brought up while reading Chapter 11:Never Forget the Heartbeat.

My take is my own, I am not trying to put words in Joe Maddon’s voice. I am writing to figure out what I think about the subject. All interpretations and reasoning, as well as errors  are mine unless noted.

heu·​ris·​tic: involving or serving as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental and especially trial-and-error methods

·       heuristic techniques

·       a heuristic assumption

also: of or relating to exploratory problem-solving techniques that utilize self-educating techniques (such as the evaluation of feedback) to improve performance.

I have consistently used heuristics throughout my career as an engineer. One reason that people in the STEM world uses heuristics is because heuristics in the sciences are usually buttressed and scaffolded by the natural laws of sciences. Natural constraints have already been woven into the heuristics. The problem with using heuristics to solve problems that are brimming with human interactions is that human decision making is nonlinear and random, which adds an infinite order of complexity to decision making. Using heuristics in a situation that is nonlinear and random could be compared to fitting a square peg in a round hole: the solution may not only be erroneous, but more importantly, it may exacerbate the problem exponentially.

Heuristics can be described as a System 1 response, per Kahneman and Tversky (Kahneman 2013). David Epstein would call heuristics a procedural solution to a problem (Epstein 2019). Heuristics are a cognitive shortcut that we use consistently when we are faced with decisions where the there is a dearth of information and time; it is a common situation, we extrapolate what we know, what our experience tells us to shoehorn into the context and situation that exists at that moment in time. Human minds being what they are, we create rule of thumbs, truisms, and simple operational procedures to help make those decisions. In time, the heuristics become inviolate and engrained permanently in our minds; that is, we ignore the context and initial assumptions that make the heuristics true. As Soyer and Hogarth states (Emre Soyer 2020), doing so ignores two critical facts: we usually have both too little information and we have too much information. First, the experiences that we base our heuristics on is true only in that context, in that specific situation, whether it holds true generally for all similar instances is questionable, but in our haste and inability to gain more information, we do what mathematics students are often warned not to do: we extrapolate. We fill in the missing information gap with our imagination, fueled by our fallacies and biases. The convenience of that decision making process seems to justify itself, but more often than not, the decision will turn out to work to the detriment of the decision maker. We justify our choices to satisfy the need to come to a quick decision, we ignore the need to come to an accurate decision. Second, when we are inundated with information, it is natural that our human tendency to use our imagination to create narratives and stories. This is to help us remember the details of the situation, but it also conveniently fit the surfeit of information available to our subconscious mind into a familiar frame; unfortunately, this framing will always be colored with our subconscious beliefs and biases. We will add details to our narrative just to make it fit because we believe it is pertinent even when they are not. Correlation does not equal causality.

Another consideration is that in using heuristics, we are often using a general solution, something that we have cobbled together from numerous experiences into a single heuristic. Contexts are not usually considered when using heuristics. In short, we are using the generic case to solve problems that are specific and demand unique situations; that is part of the attraction of using heuristics, the assumption that good enough is good enough. We assume those pesky details to go away because we don’t have enough time to delve into the granularities.

In the pre-Moneyball era of sports, gutfeel and intuitions were the ingredients that make up  heuristics.  As such, those were the heuristics that statistical analysis was used to dispel. Analytics was the gutfeel and intuition heuristic buster.

In Joe Maddon’s case, he was an early adapter to statistical analysis. He embraced analytics, which was the reason that he was hired as a major league manager.  The analytics departments of the three teams he managed churned out reams of data for him to use. In time, however he came to the realization that analytics is just one tool, one very potent tool, but just A tool to use.

In the short time that Maddon worked as a major league manager, a relatively short tenure when compared with his long tenure working as a coach and a scout, the accepted decision making emphasis  had turned itself on its head. Because of Moneyball, managing became completely about numbers and following the algorithmic routine of processing the number, do what the number says, and never question the numbers. Those who manage had to defend every decision by reciting the all-important analytics.

One phrase that I often use to describe people’s attitudes towards sacred cows is: the biggest and most vocal anti-establishment rebels will often become the biggest new establishment dogmatist after the ancient regime has been overturned. Those who are most passionate about their beliefs have skin in the game, which make them the most vociferous and fierce about their beliefs, so much so that they become as intractable as those who they had deposed.

In many ways they suffer from the sunken-cost fallacy: they have bought into their beliefs that they feel they must not betray their side of the argument that they become zealots.  They will automatically dispense with debate and become just as entrenched and rooted in their heuristics as those they had opposed in the old establishment.  This is what I see in the debate between the analytics proponents and the intuition proponents. Because of this dedication to the sunken cost  fallacy, we have a dichotomous situation that is reflective of the ethos of our society.

Maddon has an interesting, and I believe, sane approach to all this. He thinks that the analytics department is generating too much information, information that is so overwhelming in volume while also containing too much noise. The usual safeguard, in terms of statistical correlation thresholds have been ignored because of the amount of data generated by data mining, ANY correlation is deemed significant. In other words, the decision makers are chasing after noise. His other concern is that in the flood of information, the decision maker must be able to discern quickly, and accurately; which pieces of information are pertinent, and which are extraneous; an impossibility given the minuteness of the time scale and the immensity of the amount of analytic information. Indeed, he wrote in the book that even as he is a proponent of analytics, he wants less information when it comes to crunch time: when the decision maker has the most at stake, or when the situational pressure and stress is at its maximum. He explains the reasons for his preference by pointing out the following: the sample space for the data from high pressure and stress situations are minimal, not enough to meet the statistical significance threshold for decision making; he also believes that people behave differently when under high pressure and stress, therefor any data that is collected will be uncertain, noisy, and not predictive .

He makes the point of saying that he mostly manages with his instincts during the most critical situations because he does not believe that more data is helpful, instead too much data is more detrimental than helpful. This is where he makes an interesting observation. He thinks of his instincts as thinking in advance; that is, the accumulated experiences with different situations, in different contexts, and with different people are all a part of his thinking in advance. I suspect that the thinking that he does prior to a World Series game has been scrubbed of any heuristics from his experience as he is mindful of their presence and the fallacious decision that may result when he employs those heuristics. He states that he prepares for those situations by reviewing the strategy and tactics that are unusual and unexpected, just in case.

The other part of his explanation is that the manager does not and should not operate in a vacuum when it comes to the humanity of his players. Part of his knowledge and experience comes from his interaction and history with his players. He should understand their psychological makeup and he has experienced their lives during the time that they have worked together while under the glare of competition. Maddon emphasizes that he makes a point of knowing and understanding all his players. His “instincts” about the humans that he is working with are worth much more than the reams of soulless data because decision making with data is just data, coaching a team of people is an art. This art is the expression of human instincts when dealing with other humans. Indeed, he makes the eloquent point that analytics and instincts should be used and applied according to the situation and context. Data guides strategy, and the art is belief in the human element, the best solution needs to be both. The magic is in the proportion of each and how they couple and synthesize into new knowledge.

I remember when I was learning about coaching, a wise mentor made a distinct point: we are not coaching volleyball, we are coaching people, volleyball is just the context. That statement has a myriad of meanings. In one instance, it is an admonishment for the coach to remember to treat people as people while coaching; in another instance, it is an admonishment for the coach to trust the human ability to execute the actions and make the decisions no matter the circumstances.

Volleyball Heuristics

This part was actually fun. I thought about some of the heuristics that I had experienced either as a coach or as a spectator. These heuristics are not completely false, nor am I insinuating that these heuristics cannot be true under the correct context and situations. They are heuristics because they have been true under specific circumstances, but they are not true generically.

This is obviously not a definitive list.

In Training

·       Players will always get better when they play more, so just let them play more and never work on fundamentals.

·       Players can only get better by doing an infinite number of identical reps without variation.

·       Beginning players can only get better by doing an infinite number of completely random reps without seeing the same conditions twice.

·       Players should be able to figure out: strategy, tactics, technique, communications, VBIQ without feedback.

·       Drilling with no stated goals is the best way to give players reps.

·       Players should only practice their assigned positions.

o   Liberos and DS should never hit in practice.

o   Middles should never get practice time on setting or passing.

o   Setters should only set.

·       Extended scrimmages starting from zero is good preparation for play.

·       Extended scrimmages with the same scrimmage partner is good preparation for play.

·       Introducing extraneous distractions into drills prepares the players for play.

·       Slapping the ball is a good starting cue to start the rep, especially for hitter timing.

In Competition:

Many of our competition heuristics come from our need to use some statistical measure. Usually, we use intermediate metrics since using the score as a measure is too broad and too final. The problem with using intermediate measures is that we are measuring an action that is only a part of game action. We are diverting our attention from the goal, which is to win at the end of a set or a match. We instead let ourselves get head faked into chasing measures that are merely indicators and never predictors of success. For more on this please see Coach Jim Stones excellent article (https://jimstoneconsulting.com/if-coaches-dont-know-goodharts-law-they-should/) as well as my own explanation: (https://polymathtobe.blogspot.com/2022/07/stats-for-spikes-goodharts-law-and.html)

·       The teams will always win when team passing scores are above 2.5.

·       The correct serving ace to errors ratio hovers around 1.

·       Number of service errors are the best predictors of service aggression.

·       Regression to the mean predicts that the trend will immediately correct itself to the positive result after a string of negative results.

·       A definite and predetermined distribution of sets to hitting positions is necessary for success.

·       Always run middle on a good pass.

·       Always set the pins or backrow on a bad pass.

·       Hitters should only hit their position.

·       Never run a set play off of a dig.

·       Never run a set play out of system.

·       Only run slide plays behind the setter.

·       Setters should tip the ball only on bad passes.

·       Setters should always dump the ball immediately after the opposing team gets a dump kill on your team.

·       Never serve the Libero.

·       Always serve the substitute player that just came in.

·       Serving and passing are the only things that matter in the women’s game.

·       Blocking and hitting are the only things that matter in the men’s game.

·       Defense wins games.

·       Playing against weaker teams helps team confidence.

·       Playing against stronger teams helps team teaches resilience.

In Summary

Every coach has their own heuristic, they are reflections of our beliefs and personal philosophies. They are heuristics because every coach has had some form of success based upon their heuristics. Heuristics only become detrimental to our coaching when we ignore the basis context of how the heuristics became heuristics. There is a time and a place for every heuristic-based decision that we make. If we mindlessly follow our heuristics, we will usually pay the price. We need to challenge every one of our heuristics consistently and constantly. It is even better if we had other coaches challenge them for us, either on or off the court. Professional poker player Annie Dukes, in her book Thinking in Bets (Dukes 2018), talks about having a committee of other poker players who will sit with her and go over every hand that she plays just to avoid all the fallacious thinking that exists. It would be interesting and beneficial to convene a panel of coaches to demythologize all the personal heuristics. Just saying.

References

Dukes, Annie. Thinking in Bets. New York: Penguin, 2018.

Emre Soyer, Robin M. Hogarth. The Myth of Experience: Why we Learn the Wrong Lessons, and Ways to Correct Them. New York: Hatchett Book Group, 2020.

Epstein, David. Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. New York: Riverhead Books, 2019.

Joe Maddon, Tom Verducci. The Book of Joe: Trying Not to Suck at Baseball and Life. New York: Hatchette Book Group, 2022.

Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking Fast and Slow. NYC: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013.

 

 

Volleyball Coaching Life-The Five Levels

In reading Joe Maddon’s Book, The Book of Joe, (Joe Maddon 2022), I was able to gain valuable insight into his rarified world of managing a professional baseball team. One thing that caught my attention was when Maddon wrote the chapter about professional baseball players and the differing attitudes that make up the levels of development for the players. It is Chapter 8: The Five Levels of Being a Professional. I am expanding on it, in the context of junior athletes and coaches.

My take is my own, I am not putting words in Joe Maddon’s voice. I am writing to figure out what I think about the subject. All interpretations and reasoning, as well as errors  are mine.

According to Maddon, he was contemplating the levels of the professional players after they have reached the major league level, these levels are results of the combination of the player’s variable emotional and maturity as they evolved through their stint in the big leagues. His epiphany came as he asked the question: “What am I seeing here? What are the big leagues about?” What each individual mentally adopts as the answer to his question places them on a defined level of emotional and maturity that are commensurate with their readiness to be a professional ball player.  He believes that there is an arc to a person’s growth when they arrive at the highest level of their profession. He categorized the different levels of evolution The Five Levels of Being a Professional:

·       Level One: Happy to be Here.

·       Level Two: Survival.

·       Level Three: I Belong Here.

·       Level Four: Make As Much Money as You can.

·       Level Five: All I Want to Do is Win.

I am renaming it more accurately as The Five Levels of Being a Developing Athlete, and The Five Levels of Being a Coach.

Characteristics of Each Level

Maddon levels are intended to identify those who have already reached the pinnacle of their careers, they are at the major league level. What goes without saying is that as each athlete stagnates in any one of the levels, they will inevitably stop advancing towards the last level, backtrack, and drop out of the major leagues.

I draw the parallel between Maddon’s chapter on those who have already reached the pinnacle of their sporting careers with developing players and coaches. Equivalently, there is a good possibility that the players and coaches can fall into a rut and stagnate on any one of the levels.

Coincidentally, Maddon’s levels can be roughly shoehorned into Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. (Figure 1 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs)

·       Maddon’s Levels One: Happy to Be Here and Two: Survival being commensurate with the Safety level of Maslow.

·       Maddon’s Level Three: I Belong being commensurate with the Love/Belonging level of Maslow.

·       Maddon’s Level Four: Make As Much Money as Possible being commensurate with the Self-Esteem level of Maslow.

·       Maddon’s Level Five: I just want to Win being Commensurate with the Self-Actualization level of Maslow.

                                   

Figure 1 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Level One: Happy to be Here.

As the name implies, the person feels overwhelmed; they can’t believe that they have achieved this level, even though this is what they have worked toward as a goal. They know that they have only managed to get their foot in the door. They are not sure how they fit into the grander schemes, and they are also not sure about how they can contribute to the group. On a positive note, they are not afraid of making mistakes because they are running on adrenaline and instinct. They also don’t know enough or are aware enough to feel that they are being judged.

As a Player

We have all had these kinds of players, those players who can’t believe they made the team, the ones that are willing to do anything because they cannot believe in their own good luck; many do attribute their presence to luck.

They can’t believe they belong, but at the same time they are too unaware of the larger scheme to question their status within the team or the organization.

The novelty will wear off as the novelty usually erodes quickly. Usually, their burgeoning confidence will take them to the next level.

As a Coach

The beginning coaches view their role  as both a mission and a torment. They understand their responsibilities to the players, and in many ways, they are fearful over how they could and would engage the players in practice, in games, and all that down time in between. If they are familiar with youth sports, they should also be in deathly fear of dealing with parents.

Those who had played organized sports will try to recall all the drills that they have ever done as a player and  work in futility to make sense of all the “Why?”, “How?”, and “What-if?” questions.

Those who are new to the sport are putting all their attention on amassing drills, tips, and any accumulated wisdom that they can find. They don’t question the veracity of what they have amassed. It is more valuable as a safety blanket, and a crutch to lean on while dealing with the vast and in their minds, unbridgeable chasm between existing knowledge and what they feel is necessary to do the job.

Neophyte coaches’ cycle through the first level as they become more comfortable. The routine of coaching will settle in and what was once new evolves into the routine and procedural.

Level Two: Survival.

Maddon warns that this is the most dangerous level, where the individuals begin to feel comfortable, but not completely comfortable. They still feel like they don’t belong; ironically, their focus is on how they can stay, but not on how they can be better, which is how they can stay. They overthink, over analyze, and overreact in response to their internal conversations, which revolves around how they can fake their way into staying.  You don’t always make it when you fake it.

As a Player

The player is now aware of and appreciates the position they are in. They like where they are, and they are focused on what they need to do to stay where they are.

This is the level where the imposter syndrome begins to creep in. Many will adopt the attitude and strategy of just treading water and staying alive while not daring to take chances and pushing themselves to get better.

They focus on doing the nots: not screwup, not calling attention to themselves, not daring to try new things because of the potential for failure, and are not willing to ask questions for fear of exposing themselves as frauds.

As Maddon points out, this is a dangerous level. This is where the player can easily and willingly get into a rut. The player’s reasoning is that it is safer to do what brought them to this point, never questioning or daring to do anything different from the tried and true; not realizing that this is the sure path to stagnation, regression, and getting left behind.

But, if the player realizes that staying the same is not a good strategy if they are desirous of another level of performance, if they dare to change and do more than survive, they will eventually get to the next level.

As a Coach

The coach has gotten over the initial adrenaline rush of being called a coach, or the immense responsibility of coaching, organizing, dealing with the players and parents, and has settled into a rhythm. They like it and they want to maintain the status quo. They want to do the familiar, they want to do what they have always done, because: why change if everything is copacetic. What they don’t realize is that people and teams are dynamic and fluid.

By choosing to not change, in the false belief that the worst thing that they can do is unnecessarily rock the boat, they are instead paving their own path to stagnation, regression, and getting left behind.

If the coach can progress emotionally towards a more mature outlook on what they are doing, they will progress to the next level.

Level Three: I Belong Here.

A Taoist quote: “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”  This is the level where the individual feels that they belong, they understand where they fit in the grand scheme of things, they understand how they can contribute, what their role is, and what is expected of them; more importantly, they understand that they can perform at the expected level. They no longer feel like impostors, although no one is ever completely freed from that shadow.

As a Player

The player has developed to be an all-around presence, they understand their game, their value to the team, they feel plugged into the team social dynamics, and they are comfortable with their roles on the team in both the sports and social milieus.

Many players will stay at this level because it is easy to be comfortable and satisfied. The next level seems like a natural development for most players, but their evolving into the next level is not guaranteed. It may also be that the player skips the next level and goes directly to the fifth level.

As a Coach

At this stage the coach is feeling comfortable with his own coaching style. He is pleased with his own philosophy, in terms of both coaching and team management. The difference between this level and the previous level is that the coach is relaxed enough to thing about their decisions critically and start to question his own decisions without fearing what other people may think. They become curious because they are not satisfied with what they already know and have the mental space to learn while also not having the fears that would prevent them from learning.

Level Four: Make As Much Money as You can Get as Much Recognition as Possible (Respect).

In a professional athletic context, making as much money is the bright shiny focus once they are assured that they belong, and they won’t lose their niche within the team.

In the non-monetary context, this is the level everyone is looking for esteem and respect; they are seeking to gain leverage by gaining in how others view them. One way to look translate this level is to equate monetary compensation with respect and esteem. 

The individuals at this level are confident and are assured about their abilities but now they are looking to gain recognition and approval from people other than themselves. They feel secure in their niche but need to be assured extrinsically through external rewards: money, opinions, and respect.

Their confidence derives from having achieved at a high level, their comfort with their place on the team is unassailable, and they understand their gifts well enough to be able to self-regulate.

As a Player

The player at this level closely straddles the line between confident and arrogant. Their performance is motivated by public praise and extrinsic attention rather than intrinsic desire for mastery.

This is particularly evident in those players who are being recruited for college. The motivation is extrinsic: that college scholarship. Their concern is less about the team and more about being seen by the right coach.  Winning and losing only matters if the individual is shining in a good public light.

The player’s behavior shifts its focus from being team centered to self-centered. The motivation is extrinsic and egocentric. Many players are stuck in this level, and often this is where they will stay never achieving level five.

As a Coach

The coach has evolved in ways that are similar to the player. They have achieved a level of excellence where they are self-assured and confident in their coaching abilities.

Win/loss records are a regular part of being a coach. Each coach is well aware of their own records. The difference in this level is that the coach is primarily motivated by their record because that is the most direct route to recognition, by their peers, players, and their bosses.

This focus on the extrinsic does affect the way they coach, but it takes the coach’s focus away from their players and the team. It places the coach’s own ego squarely in the middle of the radar, making recognition the center of their motivation. The motivation is extrinsic and egocentric.

One particular comment encapsulates this level of coach. This was said during a sideline harangue during a losing effort: YOU are making ME look bad.

Level Five: All I Want to Do is Win.

This level is the ultimate, it is the elusive nirvana, this is where the individual’s altruistic self  asserts their dominance. They are no longer just happy to be there. They don’t need to just survive, they are far from being uncomfortable in their roles, they know emphatically that they belong, and they don’t need anyone’s approval. They. Just. Want. To. Win.

This is where the magic happens in a team. Getting all the players to just want to win on the same page. They all are willingly sacrificing their personal glory and egotistical needs to just win. This is what the slogans come true: there is no I in team.

As a Player

The individuals are willing to do whatever it takes to win: for their teammates, their coaches, their friends, families, and for themselves. Because everything else in their hierarchy of needs has been met.

They are humble, because they know they cannot win by themselves, they want to win so their focus is on HOW to enable the team to win, they apply themselves towards improving themselves, their skill, their mental acuity, and their decision making; all to win. Indeed, they willingly subsume their own selfish and petty egotistical needs so that they can do whatever it takes, even to the detriment of their personal glory —i.e., the opposite of Level Four— to win.

As a Coach

Similarly, the coach has been freed of the ego, everything that they do as a coach is geared towards winning: all the technical, intellectual, and emotional aspects of being a leader are aligned with whatever it takes to win. Since they have proceeded through all of the other levels of development, they have those experiences to recall and act as scaffolding toward implementing what it takes to win.

The Environment

Getting all the players on a team at the same level is difficult, unless you are coaching a developmental team, where everyone is just happy to be there. It is because of this incongruency that the interpersonal relationships amongst the players are difficult to navigate.

The different levels of each individual frame of reference create a dynamic environment for the players to navigate. The blending of varying levels of skills, maturity levels, and knowledge is what makes coaching junior players difficult. A disparity in the levels is much more complex to manage than dealing with the varying skill levels, it is hitting driver: every difference between the players is amplified and exaggerated. Trying to manage the differing expectations from the level where the player resides is complex and has an infinite number of moving parts.

This is where the environment and culture must assert itself. The environment should be flexible and forgiving enough to accommodate all the players at the different levels. The culture, however, must be unified. The trick is for the coach to get all the players on the team to put their skin in this game, to buy into the culture completely, even as they occupy different levels of development.

Summary

When I first read Maddon’s Chapter 8, the varying levels struck me as the perfect categorization of the players on teams. I can identify the Happy-To-Be-Here player, the Survival player, the Confident player, the Look-At-Me player, and the I-just-want-to-win player. Each team that I have coached had each of the five levels of players in different ratios. Coaching some of these teams was more trying than others. I admit that I had mishandled the environment and culture for some of the teams. While others operated smoothly. I had never really thought about why these teams operated with the varying levels of successes in the player’s development level context until I read this chapter. To be clear, I understand how the fluctuating skill levels of the team members impact the team dynamics, I had not thought about what their mental development levels could impact the team dynamics.

Identifying these levels of players early on would have been helpful in helping me negotiate the trials and tribulations of coaching the teams. Of course, I didn’t think in these terms when I coached them. I know better now. At least I hope so.

References

Joe Maddon, Tom Verducci. The Book of Joe: Trying Not to Suck at Baseball and Life. New York: Hatchette Book Group, 2022.