Sport Skills
Putt With Your Brain - Part 2
From: Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
If there is a poster child sport for our favorite phrase, "Sports Are 80 Percent Mental", it must be golf. Maybe its the slow pace of play that gives us plenty of time to think between shots. Maybe its the "on stage" performance feeling we get when we step up to that first tee in front of our friends (or strangers!) Maybe its the "high" of an amazing approach shot that lands 3 feet from the cup followed by the "low" of missing the birdie putt.
From any angle, a golf course is the sport psychologist's laboratory to study the mix of emotions, confidence, skill execution and internal cognitive processes that are needed to avoid buying rounds at the 19th hole. Last time, we looked at some of the recent research on putting mechanics, but, as promised, we now turn to the mental side of putting.
Sian Beilock and her team at the University of Chicago's Human Performance Lab
recently released the latest of a string of research studies on sports
performance, or more specifically, how not to choke under pressure.
Lucky for us, they chose putting as their sport skill of choice. This
ties in with Dr. Beilock's theory of embodied cognition that we
featured in Watching Sports Is Good For Your Brain.
An underlying theme to this work is the concept of automaticity,
or the ability to carry out sport skills without consciously thinking
about them. Performing below expectations (i.e. choking) starts when we
allow our minds to step out of this automatic mode and start thinking
about the steps to our putting stroke and all of those "swing thoughts"
that come with it ("keep your elbows in", "head down", "straight
back").
Our brain over analyzes and second-guesses the motor skills we
have learned from hundreds of practice putts. Previously, we looked at automaticity in other sports.
Of course, a key distinction to the definition of choking is that you
are playing "well below expectations". If you normally shoot par, but
now start missing easy putts, then there may be distractions that are
taking you out of your normal flow. Choking implies a temporary and
abnormal event. Automaticity theory would claim that it is these
distractions from some perceived pressure to perform that are affecting
your game.
Most research into sport skill performance divides the world into two
groups, novices and experts. Most sports have their own measures of
where the dividing line is between these groups. Expertise would imply
performance results not just experience. So, a golfer who has been
hacking away for 20 years but still can't break 100 would still be put
in the "novice" category.
Sport scientists design experiments that
compare performance between the groups given some variables, and then
hypothesize on the reason for the observed differences. Beilock, et al
have looked at golf putting from several different angles over the
years. Their research builds on itself, so let's review in reverse
chronological order.
Back in 2001, they began by comparing the two competing theories
of choking, distraction theory vs. explicit monitoring theory, and
designed a putting experiment to find the better explanation.
Distraction theory explains choking by assuming that the task of putting requires your direct attention and that high pressure situations will cause you to perform dual tasks - focus on your putting but also think about the pressure. This theory assumes there is no automaticity in skill learning and that we have to focus our attention on the skill every time.
Explicit monitoring theory claims that over
time, as we practice a skill to the point of becoming an "expert", we
proceduralize the task so that it becomes "automatic". Then, during a
high pressure situation, our brain becomes so concerned about
performance that it takes us out of automatic mode and tries to focus
on each step of the task. The research supported the explicit
monitoring theory as it was shown that the golf putting task was
affected by distractions and pressure for the experts but not the
novice putters.
So, how do we block out the pressure, so that our automaticity can kick in? Another 2001 study by Beilock
looked at mental imagery during putting. Using the same explicit
monitoring theory, should we try to think positive thoughts, like "this
ball is going in the hole" or "I have made this putt many times"? Also,
what happens if a stray negative thought, "don't miss this one!" enters
our brain? Should we try to suppress it and replace it with happy
self-talk?
She set up four groups, one receiving positive comments, one receiving negative comments, one receiving negative comments followed by positive comments and one receiving none as a control group. As expected, the happy people did improve their putting over the course of the trials, while the negative imagery hurt performance.
But, the
negative replaced with positive thought group did not show any more
improvement over the control group. So, when faced with a high
pressure, stressful situation ripe with the possibilities of choking,
try to repeat positive thoughts, but don't worry too much if the
occasional doubt creeps in.
Our strategy towards putting should also vary depending on our current
skill level. While learning the intricacies of putting, novices should
use different methods than experts, according to a 2004 study by Beilock, et al.
Novice golfers need to pay attention to the step by step components of
their swing, and they perform better when they do focus on the
declarative knowledge required.
Expert golfers, however, have practiced
their swing or putt so often that it has become "second nature" to the
point that if they are told to focus on the individual components of
their swing, they perform poorly. The experiment asked both novices and
expert golfers to first focus on their actual putting stroke by saying
the word "straight" when hitting the ball and to notice the alignment
of the putter face with the ball.
Next, they were asked to putt while also listening for a certain tone played in the background. When they heard the tone they were to call it out while putting. The first scenario, known as "skill-focused", caused the novices to putt more accurately but the experts to struggle. The second scenario, called "dual-task", distracted the novices enough to affect their putts, while the experts were not bothered and their putting accuracy was better.
Beilock showed that novices need the task focus to succeed while they
are learning to putt, while experts have internalized the putting
stroke so that even when asked to do two things, the putting stroke can
be put on "auto-pilot".
Finally, in 2008, Beilock's team added one more twist
to this debate. Does a stress factor even affect a golfer's performance
in their mind before they putt? This time, golfers, divided into the
usual novice and expert groups, were asked to first imagine or "image
execute" themselves making a putt followed by an actual putt. The
stress factor was to perform one trial under a normal, "take all the
time you need" time scenario and then another under a speeded or
time-limited scenario.
The novices performed better under the
non-hurried scenario in imagining the putt first followed by the actual
putt. The experts, however, actually did better in the hurried scenario
and worse in the relaxed setting. Again, the automaticity factor
explains the differences between the groups.
The bottom line throughout all of these studies is that if you're
learning to play golf, which includes putting, you should focus on your
swing/stroke but beware of the distractions which will take away your
concentration. That seems pretty logical, but for those that normally
putt very well, if you feel stress to sink that birdie putt, don't try
to focus in on the mechanics of your stroke. Trust the years of
experience that has taught your brain the combination of sensorimotor
skills of putting.
Just remember the Chevy Chase/Ty Webb philosophy;
"I'm going to give you a little advice. There's a force in the universe
that makes things happen. And all you have to do is get in touch with
it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball.... Nah-na-na-na,
Ma-na-na-na...."
Sian L. Beilock, Thomas H. Carr (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130 (4), 701-725 DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.130.4.701
Sian
L. Beilock; James A. Afremow; Amy L. Rabe; Thomas H. Carr (2001).
"Don't Miss!" The Debilitating Effects of Suppressive Imagery on Golf
Putting Performance Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23 (3)
Beilock
S.L.; Bertenthal B.I.; McCoy A.M.; Carr T.H. (2004). Haste does not
always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus
accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11 (2), 373-379
Sian
Beilock, Sara Gonso (2008). Putting in the mind versus putting on the
green: Expertise, performance time, and the linking of imagery and
action The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61 (6), 920-932 DOI: 10.1080/17470210701625626
Putt With Your Brain - Part 1
From: Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
If Mark Twain thinks golf is "a good walk spoiled", then putting must be a brief pause to make you reconsider ever walking again. With about 50% of our score being determined on the green, we are constantly in search of the "secret" to getting the little white ball to disappear into the cup.
Lucky for us, there is no shortage of really smart people also
looking for the answer. The first 8 months of 2008 have been no
exception, with a golf cart full of research papers on just the topic
of putting.
Is the secret in the mechanics of the putt stroke or maybe
the cognitive set-up to the putt or even the golfer's psyche when
stepping up to the ball? This first post will focus on the mechanical
side and then we'll follow-up next time with a look inside the golfer's
mind.
Let's start with a tip that most golf instructors would give, "Keep
your head still when you putt". Jack Nicklaus said it in 1974, "the
premier technical cause of missed putts is head movement" (from "Golf My Way") and Tiger Woods said it in 2001, "Every good putter keeps the head absolutely still from start to finish" (from "How I Play Golf").
Who would argue with the two greatest golfers of all time? His name is Professor Timothy Lee,
from McMaster University, and he wanted to test that observation. So,
he gathered two groups of golfers, amateurs with handicaps of 12-40,
and professionals with scratch handicaps. Using an infrared tracking
system, his team tracked the motion of the putter head and the golfer's
head during sixty putts.
As predicted, the amateurs' head moved back in unison with their putter
head, something Lee calls an "allocentric" movement, which agrees with
the advice that novice golfers move their head. However, the expert
golfers did not keep their head still, but rather moved their heads
slightly in the opposite direction of the putter head.
On the
backswing, the golfer's head moved slightly forward; on the forward
stroke, the head moved slightly backward. This "egocentric" movement
may be the more natural response to maintain a centered, balanced
stance throughout the stroke. "The exact reasons for the opposite
coordination patterns are not entirely clear," explains Lee. "However,
we suspect that the duffers tend to just sway their body with the
motions of the putter.
In contrast, the good golfers probably are
trying to maintain a stable, central body position by counteracting the
destabilization caused by the putter backswing with a forward motion of
the head. The direction of head motion is then reversed when the putter
moves forward to strike the ball." Does that mean that pro golfers like
Tiger are not keeping their heads still? No, just that you may not have to keep your head perfectly still to putt effectively.
So, what if you do have the bad habit of moving your head? Just teach
yourself to change your putting motion and you will be cutting strokes
off of your score, right? Well, not so fast. Simon Jenkins of Leeds Metropolitan University tested 15
members of the PGA European Tour to see if they could break old
physical habits during putting. His team found that players who usually
use shoulder movement in their putting action were not able to change
their ways even when instructed to use a different motion. Old habits
die hard.
Let's say you do keep your head still (nice job!), but you still 3-putt
most greens? What's the next step on the road to birdie putts? Of the
three main components of a putt, (angle of the face of the putter head
on contact, putting stroke path and the impact point on the putter),
which has the greatest effect on success?
Back in February, Jon Karlsen of the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences
in Oslo, asked 71 elite golfers (mean handicap of 1.8) to make a total
of 1301 putts (why not just 1300?) from about 12 feet to find out. His
results showed that face angle was the most important (80%), followed
by putter path (17%) and impact point (3%).
OK, forget the moving head thing and work on your putter blade angle at
contact and you will be taking honors at every tee. Wait, Jon Karlsen
came back in July with an update.
This time he compared green reading, putting technique and green
surface inconsistencies to see which of those variables we should
discuss with our golf pro. Forty-three expert golfers putted 50 times
from varying distances. Results showed that green reading (60%) was the
most dominant factor for success with technique (34%) and green
inconsistency (6%) trailing significantly.
So, after reading all of this, all you really need is something like the BreakMaster,
which will help you read the breaks and the slope to the hole! Then,
keep the putter blade square to the ball and don't move your head, at
least not in an allocentric way, that is if you can break your bad
habit of doing it. No problem, right? Well, next time we'll talk about
your brain's attitude towards putting and all the ways your putt could
go wrong before you even hit it!
Timothy
D. Lee, Tadao Ishikura, Stefan Kegel, Dave Gonzalez, Steven Passmore
(2008). Head–Putter Coordination Patterns in Expert and Less Skilled
Golfers Journal of Motor Behavior, 40 (4), 267-272 DOI: 10.3200/JMBR.40.4.267-272
Jenkins, Simon (2008). Can Elite Tournament Professional Golfers Prevent Habitual Actions in Their Putting Actions? International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3 (1), 117-127
Jon Karlsen, Gerald Smith, Johnny Nilsson (2007). The stroke has only a minor influence on direction consistency in golf putting among elite players Journal of Sports Sciences, 26 (3), 243-250 DOI: 10.1080/02640410701530902
Video Games Move From The Family Room To The Locker Room
From: Video Games Move From The Family Room To The Locker Room
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
It sounds like a sales job from a 12 year old; "Actually, Dad, this is not just another video game. Its a virtual, scenario-based microcosm of real world experiences that will enhance my decision-making abilities and my cognitive perceptions of the challenges of the sport's environment." You respond with, "So, how much is Madden 09?" With over 5 million copies of Madden 08 sold, the release of the latest version two weeks ago is rocketing up the charts. Days and late nights are being spent all over the world creating rosters, customizing plays and playing entire seasons, all for pure entertainment purposes. Can all of those hours spent with controller in hands actually be beneficial to young athletes? Shouldn't they be outside in the fresh air and sunshine playing real sports? Well, yes, to both questions.
Playing video games, (aka "gaming"), as a form of learning has been receiving increased recent attention from educational psychology researchers. At this month's American Psychological Association annual convention, several groups of researchers presented studies of the added benefits of playing video games, from problem-solving and critical thinking to better scientific reasoning. In one of the studies by Fordham University psychologist Fran C. Blumberg, PhD, and Sabrina S. Ismailer, MSED, 122 fifth-, sixth- and seventh-graders' problem-solving behavior was observed while playing a video game that they had never seen before. As the children played the game, they were asked to think aloud for 20 minutes. Researchers assessed their problem-solving ability by listening to the statements they were making while playing. The results showed that playing video games can improve cognitive and perceptual skills. "Younger children seem more interested in setting short-term goals for their learning in the game compared to older children who are more interested in simply playing and the actions of playing," said Blumberg. "Thus, younger children may show a greater need for focusing on small aspects of a given problem than older children, even in a leisure-based situation such as playing video games."
Also, in a recent article on video game learning, David Williamson Shaffer, professor of educational psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madision and author of the book "How Computer Games Help Children Learn",
argues that if a game is realistically based on real-world scenarios
and rules, it can help the child learn. “The question though is,"
Shaffer said, "is what they are doing a good simulation of what is
happening in the real world?" Shaffer explains the research happening
on this topic at his UW lab, named Epistemic Games:
Support for this new era of learning tools is coming from other interesting people, as well. George Lucas of Star Wars fame has an educational foundation, Edutopia, which has shown recent interest in simulation learning. Here is their introductory overview and accompanying video:
There are some words of caution out there. In a recent article, educational psychologist Jane M. Healy, author of "Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect our Children's Minds and What We Can Do About It," urges educators to proceed carefully. "The main question is whether the activity, whatever it is, is educationally valid and contributes significantly to whatever is being studied," she says. "The point is not whether kids are 'playing' with learning, or what medium they are playing in — a ball field or a Wii setup or a physics lab or art studio — but rather why they are doing it. Just because it is electronic does not make it any better, and it may turn out not to be as valuable."
If we accept that there is some validity to teaching/learning with video game simulations, how can we move this to the sports arena? Obviously, there is no substitute for playing the real game with real players, opponents, pressure, etc., but more teams and coaches are turning to simulation games for greater efficiency in the learning process. If the objective is to expose players to plays, tactics, field vision and critical thinking, then a gaming session can begin to introduce these concepts that will be validated later on the field during "real" practice. This homework can also be done at home, not requiring teammates, fields, equipment, etc. As mentioned in the videos above, another driving factor in the use of games is to reach this young, Web 2.0 audience through a medium that they already know, understand and enjoy. The motivation to learn is inherent with the use of games. The "don't tell them its good for them" secret is key to seeing progress with this type of training.
One of the best examples of video game adaptation for sports learning is from XOS Technologies
and their modified version of the Madden NFL game. In 2007, they
licensed the core development engine from EA Sports and created a
football simulation, called SportMotion,
that can be used for individual training. With the familiar Madden
user interface, coaches can first load their playbook into the game, as
well as their opponent's expected plays. Then, the athlete can "play"
the game but will now see their own team's plays being run by the
virtual players. Imagine the difference in learning style for a new
quarterback. Instead of studying static X's and O's on a
two-dimensional piece of paper, they can now watch and then play a
virtual simulation of the same play in motion against a variety of
different defenses. With a "first-person" view of the play unfolding,
they will see the options available in a "real-time" mode which will
force faster reaction and decision-making skills. To take the
simulation one step further, XOS has added a virtual reality option
that takes the game controller out of the player's hands and replaces
it with a VR suit and goggles allowing him to physically play the game,
throw the ball, etc. through his virtual eyes. Take a look at this
promotional video from XOS:
XOS is winning some high praise for its system, including none other than Phillip Fulmer, Head Coach of the University of Tennesee football team.
“We’re leading the nation by taking advantage of this cutting-edge
technology and we couldn’t be more pumped about it,” Fulmer said. “UT
football has a long and storied tradition of success and because we
look to pioneer groundbreaking concepts before anyone else, we’ll
proudly continue that history. The XOS PlayAction Simulator begins a
new chapter for UT and we’re pleased to add it to our football training
regiment.” Albert Tsai, vice president of advanced research at XOS
Technologies, says, “We’ve basically added functionality to popular EA
video games such as customizable playbooks, diagrams and testing
sequences to better prepare athletes for specific opponents.
Additionally, the software includes built-in teaching and reporting
tools so that coaches Fulmer, Cutcliffe and Cooter can analyze and
track the tactical-skill development of the team. At the same time, the
Volunteers can experience immediate benefits because the familiarity
with the EA SPORTS brand requires little to no learning curve for their
players.”
So, the next time your son (or daughter!) is begging for 10 more minutes on the Xbox to make sure the Packers destroy the Vikings once again (sorry, a little Wisconsin bias), you may want to reconsider pulling the plug. Then, send them outside for that fresh air.
Stats Vs. Hunches - The Moneyball Era In Sports
From: Stats Vs. Hunches - The Moneyball Era In Sports
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
Most baseball general managers live in obscurity most of their careers. Its
their first hire, the manager, that usually gets the red hot spotlight,
after every win and loss, second-guessed by reporters with recorders
and then later by fans. The GM puts the players on the field and lets
the manager and his coaches take it from there. Billy Beane
, Oakland A's general manager, could have also been an unknown, albeit
interesting, name to the baseball audience if it were not for author
Michael Lewis' 2003 book, Moneyball
. Moneyball was a runaway hit (even today, 5 years later, it is #19 on
Amazon's list of baseball books). It has morphed into a full-fledged
catchphrase philosophy used by everyone from Wall Street (where Beane
borrowed the concept) to business consulting. The general theme is to
find undervalued assets (ballplayers) by focusing on statistics that
your competition is ignoring. Of course, you have to believe in your
metrics and their predictive value for success (why has everyone else
ignored these stats?) The source of most of Beane's buried treasure of
stats was Bill James and his Sabrmetrics. Like picking undervalued
stocks of soon to explode companies, Beane looked for the diamond in
the dust (pun intended) and sign the player while no one was looking.
Constrained by his "small-market" team revenues, or maybe by his
owners' crowbar-proof wallets, he needed to make the most from every
dollar.
The combination of a GM's shrewd
player selection and a manager who can develop that talent should
reward the owner with the best of both worlds: an inexpensive team that
wins. This salary vs. performance metric is captured perfectly in this
"real-time" graphic at BenFry.com
. It connects the updated win-loss record for each MLB team with its
payroll to show the "bang for the buck" that the GMs/managers are
getting from their players. Compare the steep negative relationship
for the Mets, Yankees, Tigers and Mariners with the amazing results of
the Rays, Twins and Beane's own A's. While the critics of Moneyball
tactics would rightly point to the A's lack of a World Series win or
even appearance, the "wins to wages" ratio has not only kept Beane in a
job but given him part ownership in the A's and now the newly
resurrected San Jose Earthquakes of soccer's MLS. Beane believes the
same search for meaningful and undiscovered metrics in soccer can give
the Quakes the same arbitrage advantage. In fact, there are rumours
that he will focus full-time on conquering soccer as he knows there are
much bigger opportunities worldwide if he can prove his methods within
MLS.
In baseball, Beane relied on the
uber-stat guru, Bill James, for creative and more relevant statistical
slices of the game. In soccer, he is working with some top clubs
including his new favorite, Tottenham-Hotspur,
of the English Premier League. While he respects the history and
tradition of the game, he is confident that his search for a
competitive advantage will uncover hidden talents. Analytical tools
from companies such as Opta in Europe and Match Analysis
in the U.S. have combined video with detailed stat breakdowns of every
touch of the ball for every player in each game. Finding the right
pattern and determinant of success has become the key, according to
Match Analysis president Mark Brunkhart as quoted earlier this year,
"You
don't need statistics to spot the real great players or the really bad
ones. The trick is to take the players between those two extremes and
identify which are the best ones. If all you do is buy the players
that everyone else wants to buy then you will end up paying top dollar.
But if you take Beane's approach - to use a disciplined statistical
process to influence the selection of players who will bring the most
value - then you are giving yourself the best chance of success. Who
would not want to do that?"
Not to feel left out (or safe from scrutiny), the NBA now has its own sport-specific zealots. The Association for Professional Basketball Research (APBR)
devotes its members time and research to finding the same type of
meaningful stats that have been ignored by players, coaches and fans.
They, too, have their own Moneyball-bible, "The Wages of Wins " by David Berri, Martin Schmidt, and Stacey Brook. David Berri's WoW journal/blog
regularly posts updates and stories related to the current NBA season
and some very intriguing analysis of its players and the value of their
contributions. None other than Malcolm Gladwell, of Tipping Point and
Blink fame, provided the review of Wages of Wins for the New Yorker.
One of the main stats used is something called a player's "Win Score"
which attempts to measure the complete player, not just points,
rebounds and assists.
Win Score (WS) = PTS + REB + STL + ˝*BLK + ˝*AST – FGA – ˝*FTA – TO – ˝*PF. (Points, Rebounds, Steals, Blocked Shots, Assists, Field Goal Attempts, Free Throw Attempts, Turnovers, Personal Fouls)
WS is then adjusted for minutes played with the stat, WS48. Of course,
different player positions will have different responsibilities, so to
compare players of different positions the Position Adjusted Win Score
per 48 minutes or PAWS48 is calculated as: WS48 – Average WS48 at
primary position played. This allows an apples to apples comparison
between players at a position, and a reasonable comparison of players
value across positions. Berri's latest article looks at the fascination with Michael Beasley and some early comparisons in the Orlando Summer League.
Will
these statistics-based approaches to player evaluation be accepted by
the "establishment"? Judging by the growing number of young,
MBA-educated GMs in sports, there is a movement towards more efficient
and objective selection criteria. Just as we saw in previous evidence-based coaching articles , the evidence-based general manager is here to stay.
Play Better Golf By Playing Bigger Holes
From: Play Better Golf By Playing Bigger Holes
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
Here are some quotes we have all heard (or said ourselves) on the golf course or at the ball diamond.
On a good day:
"It was like putting into the Grand Canyon"
"The baseball looked like a beach ball up there today"
On a bad day:
"The hole was as small as a thimble"
"I don't know, it looked like he was throwing marbles"
The baseball and the golf hole are the same size every day, so are these comments meaningless or do we really perceive these objects differently depending on the day's performance? And, does our performance influence our perception or does our perception help our performance?
Jessica Witt, an assistant professor of psychological science at the University of Virginia has made two attempts at the answer. First, in a 2005 study, "See the Ball, Hit the Ball", her team studied softball players by designing an experiment that tried to correlate perceived softball size to performance. She interviewed players immediately after a game and asked them to estimate the size of the softball by picking a circle off of a board that contained several different sizes. She then found out how that player had done at the plate that day. As expected, the players that were hitting well chose the larger sized circles to represent the ball size, while the underperforming hitters chose the smaller circles. The team was not able to answer the question of causality, so they expanded the research to other sports.
Fast forward to July, 2008 and Witt and her team have just released a very similar study focused on golf, "Putting to a bigger hole: Golf performance relates to perceived size". Using the same experiment format, players who had just finished a round of golf were asked to pick out the perceived size of the hole from a collection of holes that varied in diameter by a few centimeters. Once again, the players who had scored well that day picked the larger holes and vice versa for that day's hackers. So, the team came to the same conclusion that there is some relationship between perception and performance, but could not figure out the direction of the effect. Ideally, a player could "imagine" a larger hole and then play better because of that visual cue.
Researchers at Vanderbilt University may have the answer. In a study, "The Functional Impact of Mental Imagery on Conscious Perception", the team led by Joel Pearson, wanted to see what influence our "Mind's Eye" has on our actual perception. In their experiment, they asked volunteers to imagine simple patterns of vertical or horizontal stripes. Then, they showed each person a pattern of green horizontal stripes in one eye and red vertical stripes in the other eye. This would induce what is known as the "binocular rivalry" condition where each image would fight for control of perception and would appear to alternate from one to the other. In this experiment, however, the subjects reported seeing the image they had first imagined more often. So, if they had imagined vertical stripes originally, they would report seeing the red vertical stripes predominantly.
The team concluded that mental imagery does have an influence over what is later seen. They also believe that the brain actually processes imagined mental images the same way it handles actual scenes. "More recently, with advances in human brain imaging, we now know that when you imagine something parts of the visual brain do light up and you see activity there," Pearson says. "So there's more and more evidence suggesting that there is a huge overlap between mental imagery and seeing the same thing. Our work shows that not only are imagery and vision related, but imagery directly influences what we see."
So, back to our sports example, if we were able to imagine a large golf hole or a huge baseball, this might affect our actual perception of the real thing and increase our performance. This link has not been tested, but its a step in the right direction. Another open question is the effect that our emotions and confidence have on our perceived task. That hole may look like the Grand Canyon, but the sand trap might look like the Sahara Desert!
Witt, J.K. (2008). Putting to a bigger hole: golf performance relates to perceived size. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 581-585.
Teaching Tactics and Techniques in Sports
Teaching Tactics and Techniques In Sports
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
You
have probably seen both types of teams. Team A: players who are evenly
spaced, calling out plays, staying in their positions only to watch
them dribble the ball out of bounds, lose the pass, or shoot wildly at
the goal. Team B: amazing ball control, skillful shooting and superior
quickness, speed and agility but each player is a "do-it-yourselfer"
since no one can remember a formation, strategy or position
responsibility. Team A knows WHAT to do, but can't execute. Team B
knows HOW to do it, but struggles with making good team play decisions.
This is part of the ongoing balancing act of a coach. At the youth
level, teaching technique first has been the tradition, followed by
tactical training later and separately. More recently, there has been
research on the efficiency of learning in sports and whether there is a
third "mixed" option that yields better performance.
Earlier, we took an initial look at Dr. Joan Vickers' Decision Training model as an introduction to this discussion. In addition, Dr. Markus Raab of the Institute for Movement Sciences and Sport, University of Flensburg, Germany,
(now of the Institute of Psychology, German Sport University in
Cologne), summarized the four major models of teaching sports skills
that agree that technical and tactical skills need to be combined for
more effective long-term learning. Each of the four models vary in their
treatment of learning along two different dimensions; implicit vs.
explicit learning and domain-specific vs. domain-general environments.
Types of Learning
Imagine two groups of boys playing baseball. The first group
has gathered at the local ball diamond at the park with their bats,
balls and gloves. No coaches, no parents, no umpires; just a group of
friends playing an informal "pick-up" game of baseball. They may play
by strict baseball rules, or they may improvise and make their own
"home" rules, (no called strikes, no stealing, etc.). In the past, they
may have had more formal coaching, but today is unstructured.
The second group is what we see much more often today. A team of
players, wearing their practice uniforms are driven by their parents to
team practice at a specific location and time to be handed off to the
team coaches. The coaches have planned a 90 minute session that
includes structured infield practice, then fly ball practice, then
batting practice and finally some situational scrimmages. Rules are
followed and coaching feedback is high. Both groups learn technical and
tactical skills during their afternoon of baseball. They differ in the
type of learning they experience. The first group uses "implicit"
learning while the second group uses "explicit" learning. Implicit
learning is simply the lack of explicit teaching. It is "accidental" or
"incidental" learning that soaks in during the course of our play.
There is no coach teaching the first group, but they learn by their own
trial and error and internalize the many if-then rules of technical and
tactical skills. Explicit learning, on the other hand, is directed
instruction from an expert who demonstrates proper technique or
explains the tactic and the logic behind it.
An interesting test of whether a specific skill or piece of knowledge
has been learned with implicit or explicit methods is to ask the
athlete to describe or verbalize the details of the skill or sub-skill.
If they cannot verbalize how they know what they know, it was most
likely learned through implicit learning. However, if they can explain
the team's attacking strategy for this game, for example, that most
likely came from an explicit learning session with their coach.
Types of Domains
The other dimension that coaches could use in choosing the best
teaching method is along the domain continuum. Some teaching methods
work best to teach a skill that is specific to that sport's domain and
the level of transferability to another sport is low. These methods are
known as domain-specific. For more general skills that can be useful in
several related sports, a method can be used known as domain-general.
Why would any coach choose a method that is not specific to their
sport? There has been evidence that teaching at a more abstract level,
using both implicit and explicit "play" can enhance future, more
specific coaching. Also, remember our discussion about kids playing multiple sports.Based on these two dimensions, Dr. Raab looked at and summarized these four teaching models:
- Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU)
- Decision Training (DT)
- Ball School (Ball)
- Situation Model of Anticipated Response consequences of Tactical training (SMART)
The TGFU approach, (best described by Bunker, D.; Thorpe, R. (1982) A model for the teaching of games in the secondary school, Bulletin of Physical Education, 10, 9–16), is known for involving the athlete early in the "cognition" part of the game and combining it with the technical aspect of the game. Rather than learn "how-to" skills in a vacuum, TGFU argues that an athlete can tie the technical skill with the appropriate time and place to use it and in the context of a real game or a portion of the game. This method falls into the explicit category of learning, as the purpose of the exercise is explained. However, the exercises themselves stress a more domain-general approach of more generic skills that can be transferred between related sports such as "invasion games" (soccer, football, rugby), "net games" (tennis, volleyball), "striking/fielding games" (baseball, cricket) and "target games" (golf, target shooting).
Decision Training
The DT method, (best described by Vickers, J. N., Livingston, L. F., Umeris-Bohnert, S. & Holden, D. (1999) Decision training: the effects of complex instruction, variable practice and reduced delayed feedback on the acquisition and transfer of a motor skill, Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 357–367), uses an explicit learning style but with a domain-specific approach. Please see my earlier post on Decision Training for details of the approach.
Ball School
The Ball School approach, (best described by Kroger, C. & Roth, K. (1999) Ballschule: ein ABC fur Spielanfanger [Ball school: an ABC for game beginners] (Schorndorf, Hofmann), starts on the other end of both spectrums, in that it teaches generic domain-general skills using implicit learning. It emphasizes that training must be based on ability, playfullness, and skill-based. Matching the games to the group's abilities, while maintaining an unstructured "play" atmosphere will help teach generic skills like "hitting a target" or "avoiding defenders".
SMART
Dr. Raab's own SMART model, (best described in Raab, M. (2003) Decision making in sports: implicit and explicit learning is affected by complexity of situation, International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 406–433), blends implicit and explicit learning within a domain-specific environment. The idea is that different sports' environmental complexity may demand either an implicit or explicit learning method. Raab had previously shown that skills learned implicitly work best in sport enviroments with low complexity. Skills learned explicitly will work best in highly complex environments. Complexity is measured by the number of variables in the sport. So, a soccer field has many moving parts, each with its own variables. So, the bottom line is to use the learning strategy that fits the sport's inherent difficulty. So, learning how to choose from many different skill and tactical options would work best if matched with the right domain-specific environment.
Bottom-Line for Coaches
What does all of this mean for the coach? That there are several different models of instruction and that one size does not fit all situations. Coaches need an arsenal of tools to use based on the specific goals of the training session. In reality, most sports demand both implicit and explicit learning, as well as skills that are specific to one domain, and some that can transfer across several sport domains. Flexibility in the approach taken goes back to the evidence based coaching example we gave last time. Keeping an open mind about coaching methods and options will produce better prepared athletes.
Of course, we are always interested in your thoughts and opinions! Please add your comments.
(2007). Discussion. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 12(1), 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/17408980601060184
Single Sport Kids - When To Specialize
From: Single Sport Kids - When To Specialize
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
So,
your grade school son or daughter is a good athlete, playing multiple
sports and having fun at all of them. Then, you hear the usual warning,
either from coaches or other parents; "If you want your daughter to go
anywhere in this sport, then its time to let the other sports go and
commit her full-time to this one." The logic sounds reasonable. The
more time spent on one sport, the better she will be at that sport,
right? Well, when we look at the three pillars of our Sports Cognition Framework,
motor skill competence, decision making ability, and positive mental
state, the question becomes whether any of these would benefit from
playing multiple sports, at least in the early years of an athlete
(ages 3-12)? It seems obvious that specific technical motor skills,
(i.e. soccer free kicks, baseball bunting, basketball free throws) need
plenty of practice and that learning the skill of shooting free throws
will not directly make you a better bunter. On the other end, learning
how to maintain confidence, increase your focus, and manage your
emotions are skills that should easily transfer from one sport to
another. That leaves the development of tactical decision making
ability as the unknown variable. Will a young athlete learn more about
field tactics, positional play and pattern recognition from playing
only their chosen sport or from playing multiple related sports?
Researchers at the University of Queensland, Australia
learned from previous studies that for national team caliber players
there is a correlation between the breadth of sport experiences they
had as a child and the level of expertise they now have in a single
sport. In fact, these studies show that there is an inverse relation
between the amount of multi-sport exposure time and the additional
sport-specific training to reach expert status. In plain English, the
athletes that played several different (but related) sports as a child,
were able to reach national "expert" level status faster than those
that focused only one sport in grade school . Bruce Abernethy,
Joseph Baker and Jean Cote designed an experiment to observe and
measure if there was indeed a transfer of pattern recognition ability
between related sports (i.e. team sports based on putting an object in
a goal; hockey, soccer, basketball, etc.)
They recruited two
group of athletes; nationally recognized experts in each of three
sports (netball, basketball and field hockey) who had broad sports
experiences as children and experienced but not expert level players in
the same sports whose grade school sports exposure was much more
limited (single sport athletes). (For those unfamiliar with netball, it
is basically basketball with no backboards and few different rules.)
The experiment showed each group a video segment of an actual game in
each of the sports. When the segment ended the groups were asked to map
out the positions and directions of each of the players on the field,
first offense and then defense, as best they could remember from the
video clip. The non-expert players were the control group, while the
expert players were the experimental groups. First, all players were
shown a netball clip and asked to respond. Second, all were shown a
basketball clip and finally the hockey clip. The expectation of the
researchers was that the netball players would score the highest after
watching the netball clip (no surprise there), but also that the expert
players of the other two sports would score higher than the non-expert
players. The reasoning behind their theory was that since the expert
players were exposed to many different sports as a child, there might
be a significant transfer effect between sports in pattern recognition,
and that this extra ability would serve them well in their chosen sport.
The
results were as predicted. For each sport's test, the experts in that
sport scored the highest, followed by the experts in the other sports,
with the non-experts scoring the poorest in each sport. Their
conclusion was that there was some generic learning of pattern
recognition in team sports that was transferable. The takeaway from
this study is that there is benefit to having kids play multiple sports
and that this may shorten the time and training needed to excel in a
single sport in the future.
So, go ahead and let your kids play
as many sports as they want. Resist the temptation to "overtrain" in
one sport too soon. Playing several sports certainly will not hurt
their future development and will most likely give them time to find
their true talents and their favorite sport.
Source:
Abernethy,
B., Baker, J., Côté, J. (2005). Transfer of pattern recall skills may
contribute to the development of sport expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 705-718. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1102
Federer and Nadal Can See the Difference
From: Federer and Nadal Can See the Difference
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
Watching
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal battle it out in the French Open final
last month, and now the epic Wimbledon final, I started thinking more about the interceptive timing
task requirements of each of their visuomotor systems... yeah, right.
C'mon, I just needed a good opening line for this post.
However,
other than a 120 mph tennis serve, take
a second to think about all of the different sports that send an object
flying at you at very high speeds that you not only have to see, but
also estimate the speed of the object, the movement of the object and
what you want to do with the object once it gets to you.
Some examples are:
- a hockey puck at a goalie (70-100 mph)
- a baseball pitch at a batter (70-100 mph)
- a soccer ball kicked at a keeper (60-90 mph)
Previously, we took a look at this in baseball and in soccer and also discussed the different types of visual skills in sports. There, we broke it down into three categories:
- Targeting tasks
- Interceptive timing tasks
- Tactical decision making tasks
The
second category, interceptive timing tasks, deals with the examples
above; stuff coming at you fast and you need to react. There are three
levels of response that take an increasing level of brainpower. First,
there is a basic reaction, also known as optometric reaction. In other
words, "see it and get out of the way". Next, there is a perceptual
reaction, meaning you actually can identify the object coming at you
and can put it in some context (i.e. that is a tennis ball coming at
you and not a bird swooping out of the sky). Finally, there is a
cognitive reaction, meaning you know what is coming at you and you have
a plan of what to do with it (i.e. return the ball with top-spin
down the right line). This cognitive skill is usually sport-specific
and learned over years of tactical training. Obviously, for
professional tennis players, they are at the expert cognitive stage and
have a plan for most shots. Federer's problem was that Nadal had better
plans. But, in order to reach that cognitive stage, they first need to
have excellent optometric and perceptual skills. Can those skills be
trained? Or are the best tennis players born with naturally better
abilities? Did their training make them better tennis players or are
they better players because of some natural skills?
Leila Overney and her team at the Brain Mind Institute of Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL)
recently studied whether expert tennis players have better visual
perception abilities than other athletes and non-tennis players.
Typically, motor skill research compares experts to non-experts and
tries to deduce what the experts are doing differently to excel. In
this study, an additional category was added. Overney wanted to see if
the perceptual skills of the tennis players were significantly more
advanced than athletes of a similar fitness level, (in this case
triathletes), to eliminate the variable of "fitness", and also more
advanced than novice tennis players (the typical comparison). To
eliminate the cognitive knowledge difference between the groups, she
used seven non-sport specific visual tests. Please see the actual study
for details of all the tests. The bottom line of the results was that
certain motion detection and speed discrimination skills were better in
the tennis players (in other words, being able to track a ball coming
at you and its movement side to side).
So, the expert tennis
players were better at tracking balls coming at them than triathletes
and non-tennis players.... seems pretty obvious(!) But, these results
are a first step to answering the question of "can these skills be
trained"? We see that there is, indeed, a difference in ability level
between expert players and athletes that are in similar shape and
competitive spirit. Now, the question becomes, "how did these tennis
players acquire a higher level of perception skill"? Was it "nature or
nurture", "genetically gifted or trained through practice"?
What do you think?
Source: Overney,
L.S., Blanke, O., Herzog, M.H., Burr, D.C. (2008). Enhanced Temporal
but Not Attentional Processing in Expert Tennis Players. PLoS ONE, 3(6), e2380. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002380
See The Ball, Be The Ball - Vision and Sports
From: See The Ball, Be The Ball - Vision and Sports
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
The
whistle blows and Shaq goes to the line again after being fouled on
purpose for the fourth time. And, again, we watch as he takes that
awkward stance, looks at the basket and then clanks one of the back of
the rim. We wonder how hard this can be... just aim and shoot! Isn't it
that simple? Well, not exactly. In our introduction to this series I mentioned the research of Dr. Joan Vickers and her concept of the "Quiet Eye". In her book, Perception, Cognition and Decision Training, she describes this visual targeting pathway:
"...the
visual pathway begins when information is registered on the eye's
retina by the focal and ambient systems, then travels to the back of
the head along the optic nerve and radiates to the occipital cortex, where visual information is registered as billions of features. These then race
in parallel fashion both to the top of the head to the parietal cortex
(dorsal) and along the sides of the head to the temporal (ventral)
areas. There is an integration of information in the somatosensory cortex as the
information goes to the frontal cortex, where the goals and intentions
reside and plans are formulated for the specific event that is
occurring. The flow of information then goes to the premotor and motor
cortex at the top of the head before going down the spinal cord to the
effectors." P.26
This same process repeats
constantly during any athletic event and it is the most critical
determinant of the outcome of the game. Just think about the types of
visual work that needs to be done by an athlete (as defined by Dr.
Vickers):
1. Targeting Tasks - being able to fixate on a target,
fixed or moving, to be able to throw, kick or send an object towards
it. (i.e. Shooting or passing a baseball, football, basketball, soccer
ball, hockey puck, etc.)
2. Interceptive Timing Tasks - being able to recognize, track and finally control an object as it comes at you (aka "catching")
3.
Tactical Decision Making Tasks - being able to take in an environmental
scan of the field/court and recognize patterns of all the moving
objects (i.e. a quarterback scanning his receivers and choosing the
best option for a pass).
All
of these scenarios require the athlete to focus or "gaze" on the right
points in the environment and ignore the rest of the scene. Dr.
Vickers' work has been to observe athletes of different skill levels,
expert and non-expert, and define the "best practices" of visual
control so that the non-expert athletes can be coached to better
performance. Her research lab uses "eye-trackers" (see photo) to
monitor the focus and gaze of the athlete's pupils as they perform
their skills. For example, she has found that expert baseball hitters
focus on the release point of the ball exclusively, rather than random
fixations on the pitcher's arm, head, jersey, etc. She found that
expert golf putters focus on a specific point on the cup, then a
specific point on the back of the ball and remain fixated on the point
on the ball after the ball has left the putter blade. Novices allow
their gaze to wander from the ball to the hole, without a very specific
focal point on either the cup or the ball. The term "Quiet Eye" comes
from these observations that expert performers have consciously chosen
points in their space to focus on rather than allowing their eyes to
wander and fixate on multiple points (i.e. a "noisy" eye).
So,
why does the Quiet Eye work? When we fixate on key points in our field
of vision, how does this help our neuromuscular systems perform better?
The subconscious part of our brain may be recognizing a pattern that we
have seen and experienced before and directing our movements based on
this information. Some have called this "muscle memory", meaning our
brain has learned through repetition and practice how to throw a ball
to a moving receiver at that distance and speed, and so, when presented
with a similar scenario, knows what to do. Think about when you shoot a
jump shot and sometimes you get that sensation, as soon as it leaves
your hand, that the ball is going in. Your brain may be telling you
that, based on past experience, when you've executed the same aim and
same muscle movement then the ball has gone in.
This takes us back to the discussion we had in our previous post on baseball fielding
regarding theories of perception-action combinations. The Information
Processing model claims that we perceive the environment first through
our senses, primarily our vision. Then, we access our memory to find
the rules, suggestions and knowledge that we have gained from past
experiences and these memories guide our action in the moment. The
Ecological Psychology model removes the memory access step and claims
that our perception of the environment leads directly to our actions,
as there is not enough time to access our lessons. If that is true,
then how does the Quiet Eye help us? It seems the Quiet Eye is what we
need to connect the current scenario (standing on the free throw line
looking at the basket) with our lessons learned from the past (how we
made this shot hundreds of times before). Research continues on this
question and I'm sure we'll come back to this in future posts.
Next
time, I will take a look at Dr. Vickers' "Decision Training Model",
which builds on the Quiet Eye theory to train athletes to improve their
tactical in-game decision making. We will look at the athletes who are
known as having good "vision of the field" and how to raise everyone's
game to that level.
So Why Can't Shaq Make Free Throws?
From: So Why Can't Shaq Make Free Throws?
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
The
NBA league average for free throw shooting is about 75%. Shaquille
O'Neal's career average is 52.4%. Even worse, Ben Wallace's career
average is 41.9%. The average for the NCAA Division 1 teams is 69%. The
obvious question is why can't Shaq or Ben or Memphis do any better, but
the bigger question is why do most of the best basketball players in
the world miss 2 or 3 free throws out of 10? Maybe they just haven't
heard about Joan Vickers and the "Quiet Eye".
For me, the best
science is applied science. The same goes for sports science. Theories,
physics, psychology, etc. are only useful in sports if they can be used
to improve in-game performance. That's why I have always been a fan of
academic work that leads to useful techniques in the field. Professor Joan Vickers
of the University of Calgary has been applying her research into the
human visual system and its effects on sports performance for over 25
years. She is the discoverer of the "Quiet Eye" skill that has been
shown to significantly improve accuracy in targeting and
decision-making skills in many sports. In addition to this "gaze
control" technique, she also has developed a 7-step teaching process to
improve the in-game decision-making of athletes, based partly on their
visual perception skills.
She has a new book out that condenses all of these ideas, called Perception, Cognition and Decision Training.
Over the next few days, I will do my best to paraphrase and explain the
most useful information and techniques, but of course the best source
is this book.
For an opening primer on the Quiet Eye, please take a look at this episode and this online video
of PBS' Scientific American with Hawkeye himself, Alan Alda, shooting
free throws. Please check back for two upcoming posts on these useful
techniques. Better yet, just subscribe to Sports Are 80 Percent Mental. Thanks!
Baseball and the Brain - Pitching
From: Baseball and the Brain - Pitching
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
As promised, we begin our look at the three most important technical skills of baseball: Pitching, Hitting and Catching. Each of these skills apply to other sports as well, but I thought we'd stick with the current season of baseball as the sport du jour. Again, my focus for "80 Percent Mental" is to look at sports cognition in a generic sense across all sports, occasionally digging deeper into individual sport specialties. The practical side of this is to understand how our brains and nervous system perform these skills that we often take for granted, so that we can brainstorm (yuk-yuk) on new ways to teach, practice and perfect these skills.
Pitching/Throwing
Pitching a 3" diameter baseball 46 feet (for Little League) or 60 feet, 6 inches over a target that is 8 inches wide requires an accuracy of 1/2 to 1 degree. Throwing it fast, with the pressure of a game situation makes this task one of the hardest in sports. In addition, a fielder throwing to another fielder from 40, 60 or 150 feet away, sometimes off balance or on the run, tests the brain-body connection for accuracy. So, how do we do it? And how can we learn to do it more consistently?
Questions that come to my mind regarding pitching/throwing skills and baseball include:
- Why can't a pitcher control ALL of his/her pitches? Why do some not only miss the strike zone, but are wild?
- Is the breakdown physical in the muscle sequence of the throw or is it in the connection between eyes, brain and body?
Again, one the best references I have found on this is "The Psychology of Baseball" by Mike Stadler, published by Gotham
Books. Prof. Stadler digs into many of these topics and I will
paraphrase from his findings. I won't do it justice here, so please put
it on your reading list.There are two dimensions to think about when throwing an object at a target: vertical and horizontal. The vertical dimension is a function of the distance of the throw and the effect of gravity on the object. So the thrower's estimate of distance between himself and the target will determine the accuracy of the throw vertically. Basically, if the distance is underestimated, the required strength of the throw will be underestimated and will lose the battle with gravity, resulting in a throw that will be either too low or will bounce before reaching the target. An example of this is a fast ball which is thrown with more velocity, so will reach its target before gravity has a path-changing effect on it. On the other hand, a curve ball or change-up may seem to curve downward, partly because of the spin put on the ball affecting its aerodynamics, but also because these pitches are thrown with less force, allowing gravity to pull the ball down. In the horizontal dimension, the "right-left" accuracy is related to more to the "aim" of the throw and the ability of the thrower to adjust hand-eye coordination along with finger, arm, shoulder angles and the release of the ball to send the ball in the intended direction.
So, looking at our first question, how do we improve accuracy in both dimensions? Prof. Stadler points out that research shows that skill in the vertical/distance estimating dimension is more genetically determined, while skill horizontally can be better improved with practice. Remember those spatial organization tests that we took that show a set of connected blocks in a certain shape and then show you four more sets of conected blocks? The question is which of the four sets could result from rotating the first set of blocks. Research has shown that athletes that are good at these spatial relations tests are also accurate throwers in the vertical dimension. Why? The thought is that those athletes are better able to judge the movement of objects through space and can better estimate distance in 3D space. Pitchers are able to improve this to an extent as the distance to the target is fixed. A fielder, however, starts his throw from many different positions on the field and has more targets (bases and cut-off men) to choose from, making his learning curve a bit longer.
If a throw or pitch is off-target, then what went wrong? Prof. Stadler collects many different studies that review the possible physiological/mechanical reasons for "bad throws". Despite all of the combinations of fingers, hand, arm, shoulder and body movements, it seems to all boil down to the timing of the finger release of the ball. In other words, when the pitcher's hand comes forward and the fingers start opening to allow the ball to leave. The timing of this release can vary by hundredths of a second but has significant impact on the accuracy of the throw. But, its also been shown that the throwing action happens so fast, that the brain could not consciously adjust or control that release in real-time. This points to the throwing action being controlled by what psychologists call an automated "motor program" that is created through many repeated practice throws. But, if a "release point" is incorrect, how does a pitcher correct that if they can't do so in real-time? It seems they need to change the embedded program by more practice.
Another component of "off-target" pitching or throwing is the psychological side of a player's mental state/attitude. Stadler identifies research that these motor programs can be called up by the brain by current thoughts. There seems to be "good" programs and "bad" programs, meaning the brain has learned how to throw a strike and learned many programs that will not throw a strike. By "seeding" the recall with positive or negative thoughts, the "strike" program may be run, but so to can the "ball" program. So, if a pitcher thinks to himself, "don't walk this guy", he may be subconsciously calling up the "ball" program and it will result in a pitch called as a ball. So, this is why sports pscyhologists stress the need to "think positively", not just for warm and fuzzy feelings, but the brain may be listening and will instruct your body what to do.
Game Summary
I've only touched the surface for this topic. We'll see some of these themes in the hitting and catching posts that are coming up. One useful takeaway here for youth coaches is that some players will have a genetic advantage in throwing and may be your "natural" pitchers. As we dig deeper into these topics, we will be able pull out more practical tips for players and coaches.
