G is for Growth

        G is for Growth.  More specifically, G is for Growth Mindset.  The concept of a Growth Mindset is something I have stumbled across within the last year or so.  Tami Lenker, the Learning and Technology Coach at the high school where I teach, told me about a book I needed to read called Mindset by Dr. Carol Dweck.  Tami is one of the greatest people I have had the pleasure of working with in education so I immediately got the book and started reading.  The basic premise of Dr. Dweck's research is that there are two types of mindsets people have: Fixed and Growth.  Fixed mindsets see human qualities as static.  You are the way you are.  Growth mindsets see qualities as things that can change over time.  Most of us are some sort of combination of the two.  We see some traits as fixed and others as developmental.  Throughout the book Dr. Dweck gives examples of applications of mindset in different areas of life from education, to relationships, to business, and sports.  It can get a bit redundant at times, but the expansive number of studies and applications help create the theory.  I skipped over the business section because I know I will just suck at business no matter what (bad fixed mindset joke)!

        One of the major areas of interest in sports is the view of talent.  Those with a growth mindset see talent as something that can change over time with hard work and repetition.  "Great hitters aren't born.  They are made."  Fixed mindsets tend to see talent as static.  No matter what you do, either you have it or you don't.  "Some people can just hit."  Attribution of success and failure has a lot to do with mindset as well.  With a fixed mindset, failure is seen as a reflection of deficiencies as an athlete and sometimes even as a person.  "Why did we lose?  Because we suck." With a growth mindset, failure is an opportunity to get better.  "We will work on this, and we will do better next time."  With a growth mindset, success is a product of hard work, effort, and execution.  It's repeatable.  A fixed mindset's view of success is that success is a product of just being good at something.  To me, this is a slap in the face of the players and how hard they work to be good.  They take part in countless drills, hours of sweat in the weight room, in the classroom, etc. so they have the best chance of being successful.  To then attribute success to "just being good" completely nullifies the value of all of the work that led up to a performance.  That's without even mentioning the question of the purpose of coaches and educators if athletes are just good and students are just smart.

        So what are a couple of simple ways you can take this concept of Growth Mindset and make it useful moving forward?  If you are coach, praise effort.  Praise SPECIFIC effort.  Stress the importance of work, and celebrate the successes of improvements.  Most of the coaches reading this are working with players at the high school and/or college level.  What a dynamic time to be working with athletes!  If you are a player, understand that an individual performance is not a valuation of your ability.  It is simply a performance.  If you do well, be proud of the preparation that led to the performance.  If you do poorly, understand there are ways to go about improving...or growing.

        Like with feedback, there is really so much more that could be written about growth mindset.  It's becoming more and more popular in the sport psyc world and with great reason.  I have heard Josh Lifrak, the Director of Mental Skills with the Chicago Cubs, refer to growth mindset multiple times.  At the AASP Conference in October,  IMG Academy's Mental Conditioning Coaches gave an outstanding presentation on working with parents.  They are "all in" with growth mindset.  I think the concept will only continue to expand in popularity in the future, and I hope it helps you along the way.

The G is for Growth Song of the Day: Rather than a song for today, here is a 4 minute video I show my students about Growth Mindset.  It does a really good job of simplifying the concept with the comparison to the fable of The Tortoise and the Hare,

F is for Feedback

        F is for Feedback.  Feedback is such a critical part of sports and life.  We give and receive feedback constantly, both verbally and nonverbally, and we constantly process the feedback given to us.  Coach just said I took a good swing.  My teacher wrote that I did a great job on my project.  That girl just smiled at me.  If you are a player, all three are examples of feedback you may get in your daily life.  As coaches, we constantly constantly give feedback.  We tell players what we see, what we think of what we see, and often times get frustrated by their inability to see what we see.  What we say, how we say it, when we say it, and why we say it are all important to consider.  Although we may be less aware of it, we are constantly getting feedback from our players as well.  Whether we do so purposefully or not has a great impact on what we do with the feedback we get.  There is really so much great information about giving and receiving feedback, but my goal for the blog today is to give you just a couple of things to consider that I hope will make the playing/coaching experience a little better for you.

        As someone who worked with hitters, I was guilty for several years of giving horrible feedback during practice.  "Good swing," I'd say when a player would hammer a line drive into the gap during a round of BP.  It was the same thing I'd get so annoyed with as a player.  "Good swing?  I know it was a good swing....I just hit a ball to the f*in wall."  Then I would pop a ball up.  Crickets.  "Was that a bad swing?" I would think to myself.  A couple of swings would go by, and I wouldn't hear my coach say anything.  "Were those bad swings?  He didn't say good so surely they were."  Before you know it, I thought my swing was screwed up in one round of BP.  Irrational thinking for sure.  Fast forward to my work with hitters, and again I was guilty of what I'd hated so dearly.  I was aware but a little unsure of how to go about changing.  This touches on something many coaches can probably relate to.  As young coaches, we are so often what we experienced as players.  Rather than really forcing ourselves to think about best practices, we do what we have learned through observation or experience.  That was challenged for me early on in my sport psychology degree program by a book called The Inner Game of Tennis by W. Timothy Gallwey.  The book talked about the danger of what Gallwey termed as judgments.  Any time we label something as good or bad we are judging.  The key, according to Gallwey, was to use observations instead.  Rather than good or bad, a swing was simply a series of movements with a clear result.  Like I said, the book challenged and ultimately changed my way of giving feedback.  I realized that saying "Good swing" every time a hitter struck a ball well in BP was basically useless and actually had the potential to do more harm than good.  Instead, I needed to be able to give specific feedback about what happened.  Still better yet, I needed to be able to talk with hitters about what they felt happened during a round.  This would force them to understand what was going on.  Then, they had a shot at the improvement they sought and at being self-aware.  I am not saying I was some great hitting guru by any means.  I do think I got better with my communication with players though and that they were better off  as a result.

        I feel very strongly about the concept of observing instead of judging.  It not only changed the way I coached, but it changed the way I taught and thought of students as well.  I'd been guilty early on of labeling kids as "good" or "bad" kids rather than observing behaviors independently and reacting accordingly.  This was extremely dangerous for multiple reasons.  First, it was incredibly high and mighty of me to think that I had the right to say a kid was a "bad kid" or not.  Second, it indirectly left me open to reacting way too emotionally and irrationally to behaviors.  That kid talked when I'm talking.  He is a rude, bad kid!  Teachers really think that way, and it's so irrational.  It's unfair to the kid and makes your life much more difficult than it needs to be.  Since I have challenged myself to judge less and observe more, my feedback with students has improved tremendously.  If a student misbehaves, we are able to have a rational discussion rather than anyone being put on the defensive.  I'm not saying it works all of the time, but again I think it has helped.

        As I have written before, one of the things I love most about sport psyc is the easy application to everyday life.  To be clear, this is really just the tip of what could be many icebergs when it comes to feedback.  I'll probably come back to the topic with multiple pieces later.  In the meantime, my hope is you were able to draw something from the mistakes and experiences I have had that will improve yours in the future.

F is For Feedback Song of the Day: Kenny Rogers- The Greatest

It's a great baseball song and a nice lesson on using self-awareness to change your plan!

E is for Exceptional

        E is for Exceptional.  Going back to the dictionary on this one, exceptional means "uncommon" or "unusually good."  In other words, it means something that is going to resonate when you see it or experience it.  Exceptional isn't easily accessed or attained.  Steak, as an example, is rarely exceptional.  Outback has some good steak.  I could probably eat there every week.  Exceptional though?  Me thinks not.  Movies?  There are a lot of good ones, a lot of bad, but rarely is there an exceptional movie.  We're talking Godfather, mind-blowing greatness here.  Athletically, exceptional is just as rare.  An athlete getting a lot of buzz over the last couple of years, with good reason, is Steph Curry.  Is Curry uncommon?  Absolutely and in every sense of the word.  He is not a physical freak, was largely unrecruited out of Charlotte Christian High School, and somehow has become arguably the best player in the NBA.  Is he unusually good?  Without question.  His metrics are off the charts, but the beauty and greatness in his game is equally visible to the casual observer as well.  He is exceptional.

        How does one become exceptional then?  To be "unusually good" likely means a willingness to prepare that is "uncommon."  Curry's work ethic is off-the-charts.  A simple Google search of "Steph Curry work ethic" yields 227,000 results and an outstanding video.  Another word that comes to mind with Curry is discipline.  Uncommon discipline to prepare and work his butt off has allowed him to be exceptional.  While I will leave it up to you to decide for yourself what is God-given and what is not, it seems clear Steph Curry's unfathomable work ethic has allowed himself to maximize any physical gifts he was born with.  While the examples of great NBA players who are physical-freaks are much easier to think of, again Curry is exceptional.  

        Who isn't exceptional?  The overwhelming majority of the population in and out of sports.  I bring this up because I see a lot of coaches get frustrated because of having the expectations for all of their athletes to be exceptional at levels where that is just not realistic.  Why aren't the cages packed every single day after practice?  Why doesn't everyone invest the consistent time necessary to really benefit from the mental side?  They aren't exceptional.  That is why.  While I have had the great privilege to coach several players who I would call exceptional in one form another, one player's work ethic was what I would truly take to the bank as the very definition of the word.  Grayson Greiner, currently a farmhand with the Detroit Tigers, had a work ethic unlike any player I have ever been around in any capacity.  The dude worked himself into being a monster.  He committed to the University of South Carolina very early in high school but was the epitome of what coaches talk about with not being satisfied with just a commitment.  His typical day started with a 5:30 AM lift at Gold's and about an hour of hitting before school started.  Grayson then took AP classes (a semester's worth of college in all), did whatever we had for high school practice (common), and then proceeded to hit for another couple of hours afterwards (total of 150-200 swings DAILY).  Of course there were times he probably would have rather been doing what common HS kids were doing, but he wanted to be uncommon more.  As a result, he was and still is.  Grayson started at the University of South Carolina for three years, played for Team USA, was drafted in the 3rd round, and played for the high-A Tiger affiliate this year.  While I refuse to make any predictions about his future, I will, without hesitation, say Grayson is an exceptional human being who will be uncommonly successful.  The question is, "Will you be?"

What would your ABC's of Sport Psyc E be?  I'd love to hear it.

The E is for Exceptional Song of the Day is a Grammy performance from an Exceptional singer:  Adele- Rolling in the Deep (Hello is way too slow for a song of the day)

D is for Do vs Don't

        D is for Do vs Don't.  So I decided to cheat a little bit on this one and pick two words because they are closely linked.  They remind me of a situation that starts to happen more and more the longer I am in the classroom: teaching siblings.  The tendency, after teaching one kid from a particular family, is to assume a younger sibling you teach later will be the same.  Anyone who has brothers and sisters would tell you it makes no sense, but we do it anyway.  Many times I have younger siblings who go out of their way to make sure I know they are not like their older siblings.  Quickly we figure out as teachers the error in our ways and realize how different the two are.  Don't is the younger sibling of Do.  Do sets the example.  Do is responsible.  Do takes care of your performance.  Don't is rebellious.  Don't likes chaos.  Don't hurts your performance.

        As an athlete, you want to focus on what you want to do.  "Make a quality pitch."  "Drive a ball to the outfield."  "Field it, and throw it to first base."  "Read a dirtball here."  As a coach, you want to instruct athletes as to what you want them to do, and you want to do so specifically.  All of the commands listed as self-talk for an athlete could easily be instructions from coach.  This is preferable to the alternative focus on Don't.  "Don't leave one out over the plate against this guy."  "Don't swing at this guy's curveball."  "Don't panic."  We have all been guilty of saying each of those sayings to ourselves, to athletes we have coached, or both.  Likewise, we have all probably felt the disappointment in ourselves or the disbelief in the athletes we coach who went on to leave one out over the plate, swing at the breaking ball, or panic.  I can still remember taking one of those brutal rounds of BP in college.  You know, the situational round that goes downhill fast.  You DON'T get on top of a hit-and-run.  You DON'T hit a ball to the right side to move the runner.  You DON'T drive a ball to the outfield with the infield in, and you DON'T hit a ball down and in the middle with them back.  Before you know, you are lucky to get the squeeze down and have a coach who asks how you could have possibly have had a round so bad.  I know, for me, in that round once one DON'T happened I thought over and over about the DON'T.  I was emotional instead of staying rational about what one swing meant.  I let that one swing allow for doubt and snowball into a bad round.  The easy fix would have been to move on and take the next swing in the round like I had taken so many prior.  Fortunately, those types of rounds stand out as the minority although they certainly happened more than once.  So in closing, I think the overall concept here is pretty clear.  Choose the older sibling Do as an athlete or a coach.  Focus on what you want to do.  Ignore the younger sibling Don't.  He's annoying, and we'd rather not have him around.

Got a different D word for your ABC's?  Let's hear it!

D is for Do vs Don't Song of the Day: The Temptations- "The Way You Do the Things You Do"

C is for Courage

        C is for Courage.  Many people have different ideas of what courage is.  There is often a misconception that people with courage are never afraid.  I'm reminded of the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz and his search for courage (I had two older sisters so cut me some slack here).  The Lion gave off the perception of always being afraid, and therefore he had no courage.  Harvey Dorfman, one of my favorites again and someone I write about a fair amount on here with good reason, says this about courage.  "To many, it implies fearlessness.  But that is not the point of courage.  To have courage is to act bravely in spite of the existence of fear."  I love this quote.  It breaks through this false perception we have of great athletes that they are never afraid or never nervous.  Like you and I, they are people.  They aren't robots!  The difference is the ability to act in spite of the fear.  The Cowardly Lion acted despite his fears along the journey to the Great Oz.  That is true courage.

        What is it that causes these fears we have during performance and other situations we encounter?  There is no one answer to the question.  Sometime, we catastrophize a situation and it's possible result.  "If I don't get a hit here, everyone will hate me."  "If I don't get this guy out, I'll never get to pitch again."  In reality, your teammates won't hate you.  In reality, you will get to pitch again.  Both examples have a couple of qualities that get the athlete's focus away from where we would like to be.  First, the focus is out of the present moment.  Those horrible results, which many athletes have had in their heads, are in an uncontrollable future.  Sure we can influence, but we can't control.  Second, the focus is on the feelings of teammates and the decisions of coaches.  Again, both are ultimately out of our realm of control.  Finally, they're both again related to results.  Do you sense a pattern here?  By accepting the thoughts are normal and making the decision to instead focus on, "Make a pitch." or "See the ball," we are able to better enhance our likelihood of acting in spite of fear, or courageously.  Something I think trumps any skills is proper perspective.  Having proper perspective on what an at-bat, an outing on the mound, or any other sort of situation we may encounter in competition can go a long way in acting with courage.  Every pitch is important, but no pitch is important enough to become two.  Likewise, no one at-bat defines who you are as a person or even your career.  Also, understand that so many other athletes out there have had to battle through the same thoughts.  Acting with courage is certainly easier said than done.  Like you, there are situations and times in my life where I have acted without it.  There will continue to be.  We're all human.  Accept it, move on, and act with courage next time!

        What's your C for our ABC's of Sport Psychology?  I'd love to hear it.

C is for Courage Song of the Day:  Eminem- Lose Yourself (acoustic version)

I chose this one because he's clearly acting in spite of fear and some physiological signs that come with fear.  I also kind of like the different sound the guitar brings

B is for Belief

        B is for Belief.  Belief, as defined by Webster, is a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone.  The word trust is crucial to performance.  A pitcher who trusts all of his pitches is dangerous in his ability to disrupt the timing of the hitter.  A hitter who trusts his ability to get to the fastball in doesn't have to cheat to it and thus expose himself to other pitches in other quadrants of the plate.  Without that trust, or belief, the mound can be a lonely place for the pitcher.  The hitter without belief may have just as good a chance of success by going up to the plate empty handed.  The belief of a coach in a player can often lead that player to reach to heights previously thought unimaginable.  That belief also allows the player to perform with a freedom of knowing he doesn't have to constantly look over his shoulder for fear of the coach's wrath.

        Belief is huge for any athlete to perform to his/her peak ability.  The most valuable belief comes from within.  If I trust I am good at something, it ultimately does not matter what anyone else thinks.  In fact, athletes who are dependent on others as a constant source for belief are likely going to be feel unfulfilled and consistently inconsistent.  Trust me, I'd know (see my very average college career).  On the other hand, athletes with an unrelenting belief in themselves are going to be dangerous.  They are going to be able to push through the tough times and enjoy much more good than bad.  Players with varying degrees of ability fit the mold.  They could be superstars or the "overachievers" who seem to exceed the visible physical skills present to the eye.  They have a way of rising to the occasion and of outperforming the expectations of others.  Even more dangerous than the individual who believes in himself is the team that believes in its self.  We have all seen them before.  They have someone different step up every night, win in a variety of ways, and somehow again outperform the expectations of others.  To these types of teams, what others think is irrelevant.  They are special, and the belief in each other is evident in the way they play. These teams pick each other up after a bad at-bat or pitch, don't point fingers, and they seem to truly enjoy each other's successes.

        So what can you do to build this belief in yourself?  You earn it.  Prepare, prepare, and then prepare some more.  There is no secret formula.  Allow yourself to push your boundaries and to see how good you can be.  Take chances with the understanding that it is only through failure that we can grow.  Then, you'll be that dangerous player nobody wants to face.  Then, you'll be that special team who achieves what you work so hard to achieve.

SOTD for B:  "I Believe In a Thing Called Love"- The Darkness

        Got a different B for me?  I'd love to hear from you with what you have.  Please reach out either via Twitter or through email ehrlichb1@gmail.com.  Until then, I'll "C" you tomorrow!

ABC's of Sport Psychology

        Like many in my age range, one of my first favorite shows growing up was Sesame Street.  My favorite character was Cookie Monster.  Cookie Monster had one of the most important characteristics of a high performer...he knew his "Why."  Cookie Monster wanted cookies.  That was it.  No matter what a conversation was about, Cookie Monster found a way to get it back to his endless pursuit for cookies.  He even had a song about the letter-C standing for Cookie.  I can still remember sitting in my room and listening to the song on a Sesame Street record I had!  The song was part of the great job Sesame Street did with teaching kids everywhere their letters.  Inspired by their work, one of my favorite books by Harvey Dorfman, and a favorite fourth grade project of mine, I want to do something a little different over the next month or so.  I'm going to hit you every day with the ABC's of Sport Psychology.  The blogs are going to be shorter, more direct, and will address some topic of a different letter each day.  Keep in mind it is impossible to address everything within the field in one word per letter, but I'm going to do my best to combine some main principles with words that may not be used as often as others.  I hope you enjoy it and learn something along the way.

        A is for Attitude.  Attitude is one of the more talked about and controversial topics in sport psychology.  I love a quote from Joe Maddon saying, "Attitude is a decision you make every day when you wake up in the morning."  The reason attitude is somewhat controversial is because of the literal take on the quote.  If we truly have 100% control of our attitude, why would anyone ever have a bad attitude?  Semantics, I would argue.  Our attitudes have been shaped largely by our experiences throughout life and how we perceive those experiences.  That doesn't mean we can't change our attitudes though.  To do so often requires effort, and I think the problem some have with the concept of attitude being a choice is the simplicity of the idea's implication.  Maybe all would feel better about the concept if we understand it isn't just the simple, one-time decision saying, "I will have a good attitude today."  It's doing the grunt work that follows if things do not go your way at different points throughout the day.  It's making the decision over and over again.  This may not be easy and requires great discipline, but so does being an elite athlete.

        You may not have complete control over your attitude, but you can certainly have great influence over it.  Attitude has a major effect on what we get from an experience.  One relevant example taking place all over the country right now involves college baseball players home for Winter Break.  They have spent the last four months building a team and individual foundation for the upcoming spring that can either be enhanced or undone by the next month.  I've heard multiple coaches say it's the scariest month of the year for that exact reason. Players have been handed a packet with the prescribed workouts, but there is nobody there to hold their hand throughout.  Attitude about the workouts will have a major impact on what the players get from them.  The athlete who approaches workouts with enthusiasm and an attitude of knowing they will help him improve will have a completely different experience than the player who completes the workouts just to get them done.  I'd argue that is absolutely within the realm of control of the athlete.

        One area I think we give up way too much control over our attitude as human beings is when we allow the day of the week to dictate our attitude.  If you're a teacher, do me a favor and ask five people how they are doing tomorrow.  My nonexistent research says that at least two of the five people will say something akin to, "It's Monday" or "Five more days (until Winter Break)."  These poor souls are readily admitting they are allowing the day of the week or the number of days until a holiday to dictate their attitude.  In my opinion, we give ourselves a greater chance of consistency if we approach every day equally.  Win today, or "Win Now."  So much of performance centers around the concept of being fully engaged in the present moment.  Well, working on this outside of competition will allow a greater chance for athletes to be able to do so in competition.  Taking a day-by-day, moment-by-moment approach to attitude is a start.

What would your "A" be for the ABC's of Sport Psyc?  Do you have a good story about a time your attitude had an impact on your experience?  I'd love to hear from you.

My First AASP Conference Experience: Through the Eyes of a Not-So-Young First Timer

        Over the past four days, I've had the great pleasure of attending my first AASP Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana.  AASP stands for the Association for Applied Sport Psychology and is the field's closest thing to a governing body.  Among many other things, they try to ensure people are educated about what sport psychology is and who can provide services.  Every year they host a conference filled with sessions about different topics in sport psychology and with about 1000 attendees from somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 different countries.  Although I had received an agenda and mapped out the sessions I wanted to attend weeks ago, I really had no idea what to expect from the experience.

        My only two goals going into the week were to: 1. Learn as much as possible.  2. Make sure I meet those who have helped me over the last three years...and maybe a few others.  The first goal would be easy.  The second would demand me to "get comfortable being uncomfortable."  This may come as a surprise for readers who do not know me well and even some who do, but I am an observer by nature (call it an introvert if you prefer).  The word "networking" nauseates me.  When I hear the word, I think of people networking to sell themselves and having hopes of getting something out of a conversation with others.  I hate both and in all honesty probably miss out on some interactions because of being exceedingly cautious about how I may come across.  A fault of mine, perhaps.  In addition, I do not enjoy being the center of attention with large groups of people.   I am much more likely to seek out a couple of people along the side to speak with than to go through a crowd introducing myself to everyone.  Excluded from this, of course, is when I am educating.  When my job is to provide services, I am good to go regardless of the crowd.  Interaction with coaches and athletes is one of my favorite things to do.  Going to the conference at all was even a little intimidating to me.  Most of the people there traveled in large packs.  Those who did not were largely well-established already in the field or still had ties to many there through grad school programs and internships.  I didn't fit in either of those groups.  My degree program has been online, which, although the best option for me, did not allow me to make strong connections with classmates or professors.  Most of them had very different goals for themselves than I did.  I'd be lying if I said I didn't have small doubts about how my content knowledge would compare to those in attendance.  To make a sports comparison, I was like the HS athlete who'd "grown up" in an extremely small town and was now going to play at a big time college.  People in my small pond have been telling me I'm "good", but am I really?

        Like I said earlier, goal one was easy.  There were sessions every day of great interest.  For now, it doesn't feel right to discuss a lot of specific content, but there was a great mixture of both science and practice in what I attended.  What I will say stood out to me was the variety of speaking styles.  Some people were clearly performers, and others were not.  Some were funny, and others were more business-like with their approach.  The common characteristic I would say I responded the best to was those who didn't deliver their content like they had something to prove to others.  Many of the speakers have been working in sport psychology for a very long time (Some had excruciatingly long introductions to prove it!).  To use one of the old cliches, "They had forgotten more sport psychology than I knew."  Despite that, the best speakers did not take the approach that they knew everything or that they had to make sure everyone in attendance was aware how smart they are.  To steal a common message from the conference that resonated with me, "They spoke to the ones who were listening."  They simply shared their messages and experiences.  They weren't afraid to admit uncertainty when asked a question.  Whether they were really loud and active or not was kind of just window dressing for me.  They were themselves, and that was plenty good enough.

        Goal two was again more difficult.  I liked the freedom of being there by myself, but it did demand I seek out others if I were to make connections.  My overall method of choice was to talk with presenters after their sessions.  This was probably the coolest thing about the setup of the conference.  A session may go from 9-10, and that is how long they would keep the group.   The presenters would then stick around afterwards though, and you could go talk to them.  Everyone I talked to was unbelievably gracious with their time and humble about their work.  There was no rush to answer questions, and many took the time to ask about me and what I am doing.  In addition, there were a handful of other attendees I connected with either in a session or just in passing.  I enjoyed hearing their stories and experiences based on what programs they were a part of and what work they were doing or hoping to do.  One of my favorite sessions was done by a group who works with the United States Military.  They had us move with a group to different stations and talk through some scenarios.  This made me feel like I was part of a real live class, and I enjoyed that a lot.  It also provided me with one of those "Ah ha" moments where I was reminded I definitely know what I am talking about.  One other part of goal two that was pretty cool was making a point to talk with a couple of professors who are part of a degree program I considered attending a couple of years ago.  I just wanted to thank them for helping me out with my decision and being so generous with their advice, but I did not think they would remember me.  Well, not only did they remember me, but THEY thanked me for talking with them and showed genuine interest in what I have done.  What?  Don't they know I didn't go to their school?  In addition, one of the doctoral students at the school took the time to talk with me even though I was clear I did not really have interest in any more grad school for now.  She was again incredibly generous with her time and in sharing her experiences.  Just some great people being great people and enjoying talking about a shared love for sport psychology I guess.  Regardless, it was very cool of all of them, and I feel good about the overall success of goal two as well.

        So where then did the experience of the week leave me?   It left me in what I feel like is a great place.  I'm leaving, somehow, both humbled and confident.  I've been humbled because it was really my first, in-person experience of not being the "expert" in sport psyc. The conference humbled me with some of the incredibly knowledgeable and experienced people who are out there.  Something I have come to realize is my degree program setup had put me in a shell for much of the experience.  Sure, there was interaction on class discussion boards and some feedback from professors.  They weren't actually there with me during the long weekends of work though.  I now realize it would be best for the athletes who I work with if I got out of this territorial shell and tried to collaborate with others more.  Although I'm humbled, I'm also very confident as I get ready to head home to South Carolina.  I feel like I'm exactly where I need to be, know what I need to know, and know where I want to go in the future.  Who knows?  Maybe one day it will lead to being one of those having the opportunity to spread my knowledge and help others the way so many did for me this week.  In the meantime, I'm ready to get back to work!


Side Note:   A second commonality of almost every speaker was they never mentioned how many championships they had been a part of or how many players they had go on to play professionally.  As someone who has a great deal of his "interaction" with other sport psyc people on Twitter, this was refreshing to say the least.  It is, after all, about the athletes.
     

Great Athletes Are a Lot Like Plumbers

        Great athletes are a lot like plumbers.  That is something you probably never thought you'd see written, but I encourage you to hear me out and to take a look at the sports media site of your choosing for evidence.  Chances are you will find plenty of articles that have nothing to do with the actual performance of athletes.  I'll never forget being in college and watching the strange Terrell Owens workout press conference in his driveway.  ESPN and viewers everywhere ate it up.  Kyle Roberson, one of my teammates and roommates, made a comment that it was going to change sports reporting forever.  I'm not sure Kyle realized just how right he would be, but ESPN has become skewed heavily in favor of entertainment in lieu of actual sports. With this shift, there has been an overwhelming increase of outside sources influencing the thought process of the professional athlete in particular.  Constant questions about expectations from people who have nothing to do with the team.  Athletes have every chance to be bothered by these outside expectations, and many are.  The great ones, however, are able to filter out the crap and understand the expectations of others have as much or as little influence as the athletes allow.

        What makes some athletes better at handling playing in larger markets like New York and Boston than others?  While there are certainly many possible variables in play, I think they are excellent plumbers.  They are able to flush the meaningless expectations of outsiders and are self-driven to do well.  Both compliments and criticism from the media and fans have a minimal impact on the way they go about things.  Think about how hard this is even for fans.  People who ultimately are just spending a couple of hours here and there watching a game get so upset over analysts talking negatively about "their" team.  Every year there are players who sign large contracts in a big market after success in other places only to under-perform based on the standards they have established.  Whether it is a letup in preparation because of already gotten paid, the constant pressure from the media, or any other number of variables, the "crap" gets to them and the pipes burst.  The plumber, however, is able to understand all that is ultimately of no value or impact on them and keep things running smoothly.

         Are there organizations cultivating a culture conducive to plumbers?  What is it about some organizations that creates a seemingly endless list of athletes who go there and see their performance improve?  The Cardinals, Patriots, and Spurs come to mind off the top of my head.  There have to be tangible reasons in there somewhere.  No matter who gets hurt or comes and goes on the roster they always seem to be right in the thick of things.  In my opinion, a major part of this is they must have high expectations for themselves.  The key part of that sentences is the "for themselves."  What others outside of the organizations expect doesn't matter.  They are self-driven as a group.  They expect to be good, and there is clearly a level of trust and belief in anyone who suits up.  They are organizations of great plumbers staying the course regardless of any issues along the way.

        If you're a college football fan, you probably saw a poor example of plumbing by Ezekiel Elliott Saturday night.  After the Buckeyes lost for the first time in twenty-four games, Elliot vented to the media about his lack of carries and the playcalling by his coaches.  It was a momentary lapse of judgement by a 20 year-old kid.  Rather than helping to eliminate, Elliot added to the mess created by the loss in a couple of answers.  He allowed the emotion of losing for the first time in two years to outweigh how he has likely been prepared to talk with the media.  Let's be careful about rushing to judgement about Elliot as a person, however, and leave that to those who actually know him. One of the most dangerous things we can do as coaches, and ultimately as people, is judge rather than observe.  Observations are rational.  They allow us to see things for what they are.  Judgments let us take what we see and assume more than face value.  It's a dangerous behavior for coaches who know players really well much less casual fans.

        So how do you become a better plumber as an athlete?  Well, you understand what is truly important to your performance.  I'm not saying you have to completely ignore outside influences (fans, media, friends, parents).  It would be unrealistic to not acknowledge their existence (unless you're Marshawn Lynch).  Ultimately, it is your decision how much power you allow them to have over your performance.  It's also largely your choice who you hang out with and what you do.  Dr. Charlie Maher, a strong influence on me, talks a lot about PPT (People, places, things).  They all have an impact on who we are as people and athletes.  My advice would be to choose wisely, and focus on what drives you.  That's what elite plumbers are doing.  The essentials to your performance will work regardless of circumstance or outside expectations.

       One of my favorite quotes, as referred to several times before, is, "Consistent behavior leads to consistent results."  Great plumbers stick with their behaviors, and they give themselves the best chance for consistent success.  Ultimately, that is all we can hope for.

     

You Have to Get Experience...Unless You Don't

       "You just need to get experience."  "You can't just expect to be good overnight."  "You've got to pay your dues."  If you have been involved in baseball (or countless other fields) for any period of time, chances are you have heard any combination of those statements, along with several other variations, time and time again.  Baseball is a sport with so many moving parts that it really does provide endless opportunities to learn.  The Lorenzo Cain play where he scored from first base on a base hit to right field in Game 6 the other day provided one such opportunity.  The baserunner, where Jose Bautista was playing, how he had to go get it and throw, the noise, the wide turn from Eric Hosmer, and the fact a similar play had almost happened earlier in the series all played into this perfect moment of baseball wizardry.  "The play" gave something for everyone who wanted to learn a little bit about baseball regardless of your experience and expertise.  Had Lorenzo Cain ever executed that play before?  No would be my guess.  So in this case, experience hadn't taught Cain to make that play.  That brings me to the topic of this blog.  In baseball, we often get stuck in a frame of thinking.  "That's the way it has always been," is so readily accepted as an appropriate rationale.  Something that has really had me thinking over the last few months is the growing number of very young players making it to the Major League level and excelling immediately.  There are still many who come up, struggle, get sent down to tweak their games, and then come up again to experience varying levels of success.  For them, experience is a great teacher.  But there have also been more and more players like a Carlos Correa, Francisco Lindor, Miguel Sano, Lance McCullers, and Matt Duffy who have made it to the big leagues and experienced nothing but success.  Look no further than three playoff teams in the Mets, Cubs, and Astros.  All three are young in some crucial spots and were thought to be teams to watch in 2016 as a result.  They all found ways to speed up the timetable though.  The question to be asked then is, "Why?"  More specifically, "Why are more and more young players cheating the long-held belief of success at the big league level taking time?"

       To claim to know the exact answer would be irresponsible on my part.  Each player has had a different career path with an immeasurable amount of variables playing into why they have been so good so quickly.  I do have a guess though about something that is helping many of these players.  We talk so much about experience being important.  You need this many at-bats in the Minor Leagues.  There is the ever-popular 10,000 hour rule in which Malcolm Gladwell says you need 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to become an expert.  For me, I think the answer is not so much the experience but the perspective that often comes from experience.  Included in that perspective is a true understanding of one's strengths and weaknesses and what makes one successful.  Why does that take a certain number of at-bats to happen in the Major Leagues?  I would argue it doesn't for some guys because they have already been students of self-awareness for years prior to making it.  Also, this understanding never happens for some guys no matter how much experience they get.  It isn't from a lack of ability if they have already made it that far.  Some guys never see the improvement sometimes predicted of them, and some suddenly "find themselves" when they are 28 or 29 years old.  You will hear the quotes constantly if you listen for them.  "I finally know who I am as a pitcher/hitter."  "I know what my plan is, and I'm sticking with it."  My question would be, "Is there anything we can do to help players know themselves sooner?"  The answer to my own question is, "Yes," and a major reason why I think self-awareness trumps traditional mental skills in many cases.

        Also to be included in that perspective is a proper understanding of what each at-bat and performance really means.  The pattern for many young hitters is they come up, have instant success for a short period of time, start to struggle as the league adjusts, and then fail so miserably they have to be sent down.  A loss of confidence or belief that they belong often accompanies that struggle.  There are even stories of the great Willie Mays begging to be sent down to AAA after struggling for a time in the Major Leagues.  It's not always a question of whether they are talented enough to succeed.  The guys who are able to better weather the storm of not sustaining that initial success probably have a better perspective of what each at-bat and game means.  A poor performance has a rational explanation behind it, but it's often masked with a player's emotion.  One bad start doesn't mean you have terrible stuff or don't belong at a certain level.  Just as important is the rational explanation that accompanies a great performance.  One great performance does not mean you have arrived.  What made the great performance happen?  What did you do to prepare and to execute?  If you don't know why you are good, you're leaving your performance up to chance.  Increasing this understanding better equips the player for the ride.

       Those are just a couple of examples of the perspective that often is learned at the Major League level.  My guess, an educated one based on quotes, anecdotes, and informal observation, is that it has been learned earlier by guys who have had sustained success earlier.  Before the complaints come filing in, I do know many of the guys who have been successful right away are incredibly gifted physically.  There have been countless others who are just as gifted physically who have struggled initially or forever, however, and I think proper mindset has played a significant role along the way.  So what then can we do as coaches?  The easy answer would be to just believe some players have it and some players don't.  That is a lazy answer though and one you probably don't accept if you are a reader of this blog.  The more difficult answer is just as simple but demands time and discipline.  Help your players to develop a perspective that, along with many other things, includes self-awareness and proper valuation of at-bats and overall performances.  Get them to be able to verbalize and rationally understand what specifically makes them good when they are good and what makes them bad when they are bad.  Many times what seems so obvious to us as coaches is not nearly so obvious to the players we coach.  Create an environment that gives proper valuation to each pitch or at-bat.  Each is an opportunity to learn if we take advantage.  You may not see the "get rich quick" results you are looking for with these suggestions, but the player is going to be better off in the long run for the development.

       This blog has been my shot at the beginning of a discussion of what makes some younger players skip the experience "necessary" to sustain success at higher levels of play, but it really qualifies for multiple levels of competition and job fields.  There are some key sport psyc concepts peppered in, but again I don't think I can quantify the exact reasons for all of these players' success.  I can only share what I've read, observed, and discussed with others.  What do you think makes players successful so quickly?  I'd love to hear from you.  Shoot me an email at ehrlichb1@gmail.com or tweet to me.  Enjoy the World Series, and take advantage of the opportunity to learn.

A Pitch is a Pitch

       Over the last month, Playoff Fever has hit Major League Baseball.  Some of its symptoms are coaches on the hot seat, debates over innings limits, and constant talk over which teams will be able to grab hold of a spot in "the dance."  The greatest symptom, however, is the heavy scrutiny of a "key series" or a play late in the game.  This symptom is known to influence players to try to raise their level of play and is probably the most dangerous of all of Playoff Fever's symptoms.  Worse yet, this last symptom has been known to be contagious and to infect an entire team (2011 Braves anyone?).

       Now that we have addressed the symptoms, let's talk about how to avoid Playoff Fever if you are a competitor.  There is a very simple solution with no expensive antibiotics or organic diet necessary.  All you have to do is understand one very simple principle:  "A pitch is a pitch."  What I mean is that the reality of baseball is that no singular pitch carries greater value than another unless we assign that value.  Whether it's thrown in the first inning or the last, the pitch is still only worth one pitch.  The value assigned is certainly influenced by circumstances.  A pitch thrown with runners in scoring position could be considered "more important" than one thrown with nobody on.  What creates this illusion of "the biggest pitch of the game" is the influence situations often have on us.  The moment wouldn't exist without all of the others that led up to it.  Constant challenges to "find out what you're made of right here" may be seen as ways to motivate players, but again this is dangerous.  Implications of whether a player is successful in a singular situation being used as the evaluation for their makeup is unfair for so many reasons.  Also, coming from the world of rational thinking, what makes the games in September any more important than games in early May?  Again, it only happens with our way of evaluating the situation.  It influences players to "do a little more" or to "try a little harder."  With that being said, I'll admit playoff baseball games are more important.  They aren't important enough to change the way you have always played the game though.  One of my favorite concepts introduced to me by a mentor of mine whose influence has appeared multiple times on the blog, Geoff Miller, is that of trying too hard.  Trying too hard's result can be just as bad as not trying hard enough.  The message sent to players who have had success all year is that somehow what they did then wasn't quite good enough for late season baseball.  What are the dimensions of the field in late season baseball again?  Channeling my inner Coach Norman Dale, I'm fairly certain the ball still needs to be thrown over a 17 inch-wide plate.  Hitters, you still should see the ball, hit it, and run.  As coaches, you can either add to the external pressures of help to minimize.  Why create more of that fickle beast known as indecision?

        As I've started to pay attention, I am more and more convinced the teams who have the most success in these late season playoff pushes and into the playoffs are the ones who, I think with absolute intention from the coaching staff, continue to play how they have all year.  The Royals from 2014 come to mind.  They won last year in the regular season by running the bases, playing great defense, and having a lights out late-inning bullpen.  They won in the postseason by running the bases, playing great defense, and having a lights out late-inning bullpen.  I can still remember watching the 2013 Red Sox play a World Series game against the Cardinals.  Some of the details escape me, but the basics are that it was fairly early in the game, the Red Sox had runners on first and second, and there were no outs.  Twitter Coaching World exploded with calls for the Red Sox to sac bunt and exploded again when whoever was hitting swung away and fouled off a pitch or two.  "How are they not bunting here?"  "Doesn't John Farrell know how to coach situational baseball?!?! #BuntThemOver."  John Farrell very much did know what he was doing.  The Red Sox were a team that had swung the bats all year.  Why change now?  Because expert analysts say so?  Me thinks not.  To bunt the runners over would have been a message to the team to change the way they had played all year.  It would have been to place doubt in the preparation for this very moment.  The player who "should have bunted" went on to bang one off the wall, the Red Sox went on to put up a crooked number, and they won the World Series.  In what can only be called a broadband miracle, all of those coaches who somehow thought they knew the Red Sox better than their manager must have lost their connection at the same time.  Only crickets ensued.  Did  I cherry pick a situation?  Absolutely, but I am reminded of something I have heard several times before.  Just because something doesn't work out doesn't mean it was the wrong decision.  This is something I think managers and coaches have to live by in order to not drive themselves crazy with second-guessing.  There are so many variables to whether something works out or not.  Sometimes, the hitter gets out.  Sometimes, the pitcher gives up a hit.  We lose games!  That doesn't mean you didn't do what gave your players and team the best chance of being successful.  It means we are human.

        Lavar Burton would say, "You don't have to take my word for it," right about now.  Here is a piece of an interview I found with Hall of Famer John Smoltz on "handling pressure on the big stage."  The principles apply throughout late September and into October.  Enjoy:

I really believe there’s a makeup. There’s a mental toughness that allows you to handle things that maybe the game, for people, goes too fast. The ‘what if’ scenarios suffocate them. To me, I don’t think you can be afraid to fail. Most people think, “oh, that comes with the territory,” but it really doesn’t. There’s a lot of players that put themselves in situation where they have that out-of-body experience and the next thing you know you’re like, what happened? I truly believe that if you’re not afraid to fail and you allow the moment to not be bigger … you can slow the game down and actually make it to your advantage. Look I feasted off guys who got aggressive and wanted to be the hero. I feasted off situations where the aggression and the moment makes people do things differently. I relished in it. I feel that moment was something I prepared my whole life for.

What stands out to me, among others things, is what Smoltz says about feasting off of guys who "wanted to be a hero" and "the moment makes people do things different."  Smoltz relished the situation and pitched as he always did.  He had an ultimate level of trust in his stuff and preparation for the moment.  Derek Jeter, Madison Bumgarner, and David Ortiz are in this class of player as well.

       In conclusion, remember, "A pitch is a pitch."  Everything else is create by our perception of these external influences we allow to creep in.  If you allow the influences to affect you, that is COMPLETELY NORMAL.  There is no need to beat yourself up about it.  My advice to you would be to reconnect to the moment and choose to focus on your job during that pitch to the best of your ability.  This is where the recommendation of performance routines and using your breath tend to come into play.  Do what has always made you successful, and let everyone else have situations dictate their approach.  "Consistent behavior gets consistent results."  Bingo!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/06/6VO4HxmelHSK2-2899386-image-a-30_1420579137506.jpg