Baca's Mailbag, Dec 21

Today's question was pulled from the mailbag post of Dec 12. I foolishly agreed to respond (in that post's comments) and so now I'm stuck. Unlike the norm, today's answer is not the answer. I'm not sure there is such an answer but it is a valuable topic for conversation and one that competitive paintball will have to answer eventually.

 So, do you see any way for the industry to help make tourney play more attractive to field owners, who can then sponsor and give refuge to more teams (who then buy more high end guns and cases of paint)?

Actually, I do. And I'ma throw in an extra answer besides--consider it an early Christmas present from VFTD. First thing the industry needs to do is stop sponsoring paintball teams. And by "sponsoring" I mean offering direct to teams discounted merchandise. (Did I have you going there for a sec?) Selling direct breaks down the relationships between teams/players and the local field. If the local field/pro shop is the conduit between local/regional/national am teams and discounted product it is a small price to pay to encourage fields interested in supporting competition paintball to do so and builds bonds at the local level between teams/players and their local fields/pro shops. As it stands the manufacturers who go the direct "sponsorship" route are cannibalizing their own grassroots markets.
While a good start that's not enough. In this time of economic contraction and internet sales (and even some big box store sales) the local field/pro shop--particularly if it has nearby competitors--has to offer something more, or at least different. Given that I think the bar has been raised too high for simple entry into the competitive paintball world I have some suggestions; offer and schedule times for basic paintball training; combine that with restricted but informal afternoon (or morning) (or both) streetball style "competitions" periodically and encourage or directly promote the development of paintball clubs based around the local field. The idea is to begin by teaching anyone interested the fundamentals of the game and then give them a place and a way to begin to experience their growing skills in an environment of their equals. You want more and future tourney players? Especially now they don't appear ex nihilo. The club can be an element the local field organizes or it can be an arrangement between those interested in building a paintball club and their local competition-oriented field. The club exists to develop tourney players and provide a ladder of teams on which to compete.And if the local field is the source of discounted gear, etc. you now have a reciprocal basis for the relationship. And in the longer term the most successful clubs will attract more and better players and more attention from would be industry supporters and everybody would potentially benefit.

Baca's Mailbag, Dec 9

I can see the bottom of the mail bag from here, slackers. Just saying. Personally, I'm looking forward to my blogging vacation.

"My team is looking to make the jump from Race 2-2 to D3 Race 2-4. We have been successful in the past despite being somewhat isolated with little to no access to other better teams for practice and training. My concerns are twofold; How is xball lite different, if it is, and is there anything other than what we're doing we can do to continue to get better considering our situation?" (Official VFTD paraphrase offered for clarity and succinctness.)

First, the tone of the question(s) expressed some hesitation about making the move to D3 xball lite. The move, compulsory or otherwise, needs to be reframed as a positive challenge, a good thing for the team. (Because it is.) On the other hand it's also a good thing to be as prepared as possible.
The steepest learning curve immediately is the turnaround on points. Your players need to be physically prepared and as a team you need to be properly organized to deal with the changes the quick turnarounds cause. Depending on how many players are on the team you will need to take into account; line up changes, in match tactical adjustments, basic logistical necessities. Your basic logistical necessities are potted paint, aired up working markers, assigned roles, unmarked players--all the usual basics. When you walk off the field and know you don't play again for between 10 minutes and an hour or whatever all those things are easily dealt with. When you're playing again in two minutes you have to have a plan--and everybody needs to know how they fit in the plan. Even if you will staff assistance it is worth talking through the process as a group and practicing getting ready within the turnaround time limit.
Depending on the size of your roster you may also need to prepare for shifting line-ups, different groups of five going out to play each point. Anything less than two complete lines means some number of players will be playing back-to-backs and will require priority coming off the field for things like air, getting cleaned up (paint free), etc. Even if shifting line-ups isn't new make sure you know how it's going to work within the limited time frame of the xball (Race 2) turnaround. It's between points, 2 players are going back-to-back and the pit is full of people trying to get ready and get on the field. The last thing you need is to know in advance how your team will determine what your next point is going to be. Do your players decide? Does a coach call prearranged plays? However the team functions you will need to make sure your routine for that too fits within your turnaround time. It may seem rather daunting at first but if you walk through it, get everybody on the same page and practice getting everything done within the time limit you'll be well ahead of the game. Keep in mind your first practical event experience may still be kinda chaotic because the one thing you can't prepare for is the real deal--but your advance prep will make the transition much easier.
(Based on the elements of practice you mentioned) the team should add laning OTB and Running & Gunning drills to your current regimen. (There are half a dozen or more posts in the archives covering those topics in how-to formats. Search stuff like laning, OTB, practice, playing the game, running & gunning and so on.) Otherwise the drills and mismatches (snap-shooting, 1on1's, 2on1's, 3on2's, etc.) and so on continue to be a solid base. With little or no local challenges to help keep the team sharp your group attitude and focus becomes critical to future success--which is one reason the move up to a new national level challenge is positive motivation. The other thing you need to focus on when it comes to your regular (routine) practice is execution. Practice can't degenerate into simply going through the motions, it needs to be about perfecting, always getting better.
Finally I would suggest, if it's at all possible, to arrange a special weekend practice trip--not unlike going to an event--to test your progress and scrimmage with better players and teams. Or, alternatively planning well in advance to schedule competing at a regional event where better than home grown competition will exist. Regardless, treat your first event or two in the new format as learning experiences and set your goals accordingly.
Good luck. 

Standards vs. Intagibles

Okay, not what I was originally going to go with but Dan, in Player Performance 3 comments, framed the discussion nicely I thought. What I'm on about here isn't really intangibles versus stats or some quantifiable measurements of performance; it's considering the limitations of stats--even the most comprehensive collections possible. (If you're interested in this sort of thing check out the movie 'Moneyball' and for the rest of the story take a look at the book of the same name or other volumes on sabermetrics or the baseball godfather of stats, Bill James. No links. What do you think Google is for? Sabermetrics, btw, is the ultimate extension of statistical analysis in evaluating players, their performance & team utility and predicting their likely near term performance. In doing so, or trying to do so, a lot of new categories of stats and ways of thinking about player performance have been created. Some swear by them. Others swear at them.) Baseball loves sabermetrics, basketball and football, not nearly as much--although there is a place for sabermetrics in those sports as well.
Some of you lazy slackers will recall a post (or three) [and have heard some generalized talk or rumors] about the chips Virtue has been testing in mostly Pro team guns for going on a couple of seasons now. In the NPPL one thing the chips can do--and do do (hahaha he said do do) is track ROF by individual marker. They do a lot more than that as well. In this developmental process the Virtue kids have been both refining the technology and rethinking ways of looking at the raw data and it may not be too long before our desire for paintball stats is a lot closer to being a reality.
Statistics, any statistics, do not--let me repeat myself--do not--provide or define a standard. For example, there is no set of statistical charts that clearly identify major league talent. The best stats can do for you is offer comparisons. Now it may be that a player's accumulated stats compare favorably with other up-and-coming players who proved to have major league talent so that the stats would weigh in a player's favor and suggest there is a good possibility that player has what it takes--but that isn't the same thing as measurable standards and why there remains an art to the science of player evaluation.
If you want to understand the limit of stats I have one word for you; A-Rod, the 250 million dollar man with Hall of Fame numbers and an earned reputation for disappearing in October. [For those unfamiliar with baseball that is the post season and playoff period. The paintball equivalent of playing on Sunday.]
So we're not really measuring any player against a standard. We are only making comparisons. (Or evaluating a given situations.) Of course that doesn't mean the the four-eyed geek with two left feet who sits in the front of your trig classroom has the same chance to play defensive end in the NFL as the first stringer currently playing at the University of Alabama. There are non-standards indicators and, frequently, physical requirements that fall, at a minimum, within certain ranges even if there aren't cut-and-dried standards.
Some of these indicators do not lend themselves to being boiled down into numbers, ratios or other bite-sized quantifiers. Among these sorts of indicators are the intangibles.
Why do two players with similar stats perform differently in similar situations? Why is one a Super Bowl hero and another the goat? How does a player who was a perfect fit on one team become an outsider on another?
There's more to the limitations of stats than our poster boy (A-Rod, remember?) suggests. Intangibles come in two categories; internal & external. By internal I mean things like confidence, motivation, determination, work ethic, etc. By external I'm talking about team chemistry, the relation of a player to the rest of his/her teammates. Both can have a determinative effect on player performance.
Remember last post's story? I am convinced it is the intangibles that separate the winners from the losers. In every sport there have been almost innumerable good, even great, players but only a select company of champions. And in team sports it isn't the accumulation of the most talent that wins, it's the best team that most often takes home the trophy.

Player Performance, part 3

A small confession; I love the idea of a whole battery of stats for competitive paintball and its players. The keeping of statistics is a hallmark of professionalism. (Which is a whole 'nother post but bear with me.) It's a foundational way we ("we" meaning people in general and people involved in sports) try to categorize & quantify player & team performance. And stats provide a shorthand, easy to grasp way of making comparisons and supporting the inevitable arguments for or against different players amongst the fans of whatever that sport may be. It's a way to share our common interests in ways everyone understands and makes the game and its players more accessible. At the same time it should be apparent that stats alone are insufficient for those in the business of competing.
One of my favorite stat-busters is evaluating potential pro quarterbacks by the numbers--or even, in some cases, by their experience and past accomplishments. (Although I always tend to favor results over numbers because winners tend to win. [How's that for a real cliche?]) Anyway, scouts are looking for height, arm strength, a higher than average score on the Wunderlich test, etc. (They are also looking for a variety of qualities that are harder to quantify like poise, command in the huddle, ability to read progressions and so on.) But historically the scales have always leaned toward the numbers and if a guy looks like a quarterback he must be a quarterback. As a consequence the results have been inconsistent to say the least. For every John Elway there's a Ryan Leaf. And that is from a sport that spends millions of dollars in the effort. What chance then do paintball teams, captains and coaches have to get it "right" when they're making roster decisions?

And now for something completely different; it's story time. (For those of you familiar with our team codes, no, not that kind of story time.) I want to tell you a story about a former pro player I know and once had the pleasure & privilege to coach. Toward the end of his active career as a pro player I noticed a rather marked drop in performance. And it puzzled me for a while because I could see he was making the effort. He was putting in the time and once I got to know him a bit better I could see his frustration. It got to the point where I was cutting back on his rotations and trying to manage even those in an attempt to help him succeed because both he and the team needed that success to win. I struggled with how to come to grips with whatever was wrong because it wasn't desire, effort or dedication. What it turned out to be in his case was motivation but not in the normal sense. His game depended on his passion for the game and when after years and many successes the fire didn't burn as bright or hot as it once had it affected his ability to compete at the level he once had.
The moral of the story is that if we're gonna get a real handle on player performance we need to delve well beyond the realm of stats and boldly advance into the world of the intangible.
The rest of the story is I recently spent some time with that player--who is playing again (at least for now)--with a new maturity and at least a good dose of that old fire. The game matters again, just I think, in a different way than it once did. It was good to see and in hindsight it was easy to see the difference it made and is making again.

Next time; the intangibles of player performance. And after that--separating what's important from what is essential.

Player Performance, part 2

If you missed the comments from the first player performance post you missed some interesting thoughts including some suggested categories for real honest-to-goodness stats. More on those in a minute.
With regards the recent blogging difficulties I've resolved my particular problems but some of you may still find it annoyingly difficult to post comments. In the near term I will be experimenting with different commenting options. If one or another seems to improve the situation please let me know what your experience is. Thanks.

In the category of not-quite-actual-stats all of the suggestions were reasonable and generally made good sense in a paintball context. Evaluation of baseline skill set(s); apples to apples comparison by position--for example, snake player vs. snake player; relational comparisons, ie; a good snake players is a "better" player than an average back player; and player measurements against a list of standards or criteria. If player A meets most of the standards and player B meets only half then A can be considered the better player. (It's not time--yet--to begin tearing down these various ideas. We'll get to that later.)
In the category of actual stats most of the better ideas were ratios which could be expressed a couple of different ways. For example, eliminations OTB could be a fraction or a percentage but would always represent X number of points or breakouts the player participated in against how many times the player eliminated someone during the breakout. Similar ratios could be done for being shot OTB or alive at the end of a point or eliminations per point played, etc. As a practical matter all of those stat ideas are largely impractical in our current environment and even when the PSP was tracking results in the pro division they didn't have the resources to try an accumulate and collate that level of player data. Unfortunately for those of a statistical bent competitive paintball doesn't lend itself to being broken down by the numbers.
So we find ourselves with some good ideas and even some possible stats but gathering those stats is currently beyond our general capability and even the most rigorous standards we can apply in attempting to differentiate players remain stubbornly subjective.
On one level going by the numbers helps make (some) distinctions between players but this is largely the pastime of Monday morning quarterbacks and sports fans. It is also [on another level] the province of talent scouts, coaches, personnel directors and general managers evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of their teams and players and making determinations about possible future players.
But do the numbers alone give us the whole story? With all the stats available is there still debate over who is better; Kobe or LeBron? Peyton Manning or Tom Brady? The fact is the numbers can only tell us so much and even if the numbers told the whole story we are left trying to decide which numbers are the most important. Imagine there's two snake players and we have every conceivable statistic. One of them makes the snake 97% of the time and the other has a higher kill ratio when playing the snake. Which one is better? Well, you might ask, how often does the one with the better kill ratio make the snake? If it's close then he's the better player--by the numbers. But how close or far apart does he have to be before you start weighing the two stats slightly differently--and will that balance be the same for everyone considering the question? The answer of course is even that is subjective to a certain degree and you're unlikely to find anything like universal agreement.
Next time I'll weigh in on the how and why the numbers let us down whether we're talking actual stats or we're talking standards or criteria for evaluation.

Is player performance quantifiable in paintball?

In a recent comments I was asked to offer an evaluation, or (semi-)educated opinion if you prefer, of one of the Infamous brawlers--which I refused to do. Not because it isn't an interesting or even a perfectly valid question but because I didn't think it would be either prudent (to potentially antagonize or flatter future opponents) or professional (to say anything that might be viewed as lacking respect for a fellow competitor or obviously for public consumption.) I know that may seem kinda lame to some of you but that's where I'm drawing a line.
If we (Paintball) had a more developed media there would be more of that sort of thing being discussed by fans, players & media monkeys. But we don't--and in a lot of ways never did even when you could count paintball magazines into the double digits, or close. (The industry held the purse strings and generally didn't--doesn't--tolerate bad "PR" even, or especially when it was--or is--the truth. Yes, some mags were better than others but they all played the game to one degree or another.) But I'm digressing. (Again.)
If we generalize the original commenter's question we're left with a generic question about how one might evaluate player performance and just what that evaluation entails. This is pertinent because we're closing in on this season's end and teams are either beginning to or have already begun to think about next season. And along with issues of sponsorship and general financing the other big issue is rosters. What are the teams strengths and weaknesses? Will changes need to be made? What if we lose X, Y or Z to another team or school or a job? Ideally roster moves are about improving but as a practical matter they are often also about filling holes and dealing with the unexpected. Whatever the roster consideration is all those decisions revolve around evaluating talent. (There's other equally important factors in my mind but we'll get to those later.) So here we are nearing the end of another season and everybody on a team or running a team is starting to think about their players--and possible future players, evaluating talent and making judgments.
But what criteria do you use in evaluating players? I intend to talk more, perhaps a lot more, about this in the next post but my purpose this time around was to pose the question--and hopefully begin a "discussion" about the process. What do you look for in a player? How do you determine when a player isn't working out? Break it down for me. Is there a difference between determining if a player is sufficiently skilled and deciding if you want that player on your team? Id so, what is it?
It's easy to say so-and-so is a great player. It's a lot harder to offer quantifiable criteria for making such a judgment. Player X is great because ... why?
What criteria do you use in evaluating players?

EDIT ADDED: Think baseball, basketball or football players. With baseball there's a million and one stats that track aspects of performance so that you can easily compare one player to another based on real quantifiable numbers. The same, to a lesser degree, with most all 'professional' sports. So what about paintball? Is evaluating talent strictly a seat of the pants proposition--I know it when I see it--or are there ways of making real distinctions and quantifiable judgments between different players?

I'ma give y'all a couple days to think about it and comment on it and later in the week I'll pick the subject back up. In the meantime tomorrow I'll be posting designs for a VFTD & DPA T-shirt(s) so look for those while you're contemplating the question.

Baca's Mailbag

Received a question recently about what to do about a team that seems to wilt under pressure. (That's my paraphrase and we'll leave the query anonymous so as not to potentially embarrass anyone.) I know what you're thinking: Did one of my teammates send in that question? It's a pretty common problem. It's easy to succeed when things are going well and a lot harder to turn things around when they go south.

The thing is I'm not answering that question today. I need a little more information. But it did get me thinking about performance in a competitive environment and what sets some players apart from the rest. And it isn't skill. Oh sure, skills are a prerequisite, the foundation of performance but there are a lot of players with some serious skills. Everybody who competes in the Tour de France knows how to ride a bicycle and has trained long and hard. So what separates the winners from the losers? (No, it isn't blood doping. Okay, maybe it is but this is just an example of a competition where the fundamentals are similar across the board.) Let's switch to basketball. And the question shouldn't be about winners and losers. The real question is what separates the unquestioned greats of a sport from all the other gifted, talented, hard-working & determined players? The answer is a self-confidence bordering on the irrational. A self-confidence that cannot be shaken by transitory failure. A self-confidence that doesn't ebb & flow with the tides of Fortune, the results of competition. A self-confidence that leaves no room for doubt or uncertainty. Michael Jordan is the archetype. (And why LeBron isn't.) I'm sure you can name other players in other sports whose performance routinely transcends that of their fellow competitors. This is a common trait they all share in degrees.
Of course it's one thing to identify what is, in many cases, a very frustrating factoid for those without and another thing to find a positive way to make something of it. (This is where Baca takes pity on all you mere mortals and herewith divulges one of the secrets to superior play.) But before I do I want to tell you a story. Once upon a time I began working with a team. From Day 1 it was apparent one of the players had enormous untapped potential. He had physical tools. He was teachable. His fundamentals were sound if perhaps unhoned. In a lot of respects he had all the makings of the perfect player--except he was a headcase; his own worst enemy. Over the course of that first season he made progress but nothing that suggested he was on the verge of fulfilling his potential. I was disappointed. And yet, somehow, sometime during the first month of preparing for that second season--the following January--everything changed. Almost overnight the lightbulb had turned on--and here's the important part--the same is possible for any and every player who picks up a marker but somewhere along the way hits a wall they can't seem to overcome.
Here's the secret: You can manufacture your own self-confidence. All you have to do is act as if it already exists. It's like muscle memory training for your emotions & perceptions. If you consistently act like a supremely self-confident player you will become one. This is easier to say than to do however. And I cannot promise Michael Jordan results if you don't have the skills and tenacity to go with the self-confidence but I do promise that it will open up both your mind and your game. Begin with practice. You will never do anything in a match that you haven't or won't do in practice. Push the envelope and keep on pushing. Believe it and you can be it.

Baca's Mailbag: Lessons from Galveston?

Don wants to know--at least he wanted to know last week--if the Galveston pro game videos might be useful as film study for either the pro teams or divisional teams. (At the time he asked I hadn't watched any of the videos. I have now seen a fairly large representative sample.) The answer is an equivocating maybe. More definitively, and equally disappointing, there really isn't enough of the right kind of material to serve as useful film study.

But before I get into the details I have a request: Hey, Matty, how 'bout mixing up your booth partners in order to get reps from all the teams involved? There's nothing wrong with Matty & His All-Star Friends but maybe a little love for the rest of us? (Assuming the league is going to continue with the event videos.) I know, it's out there ... but it might work. Just saying.

The matches, or as I prefer to call them, the kinetic motive activities too often focused on elements of the action, even on the breakouts where a single team was featured or the split screen and camera angles couldn't keep all ten players in sight. The elevated camera view that encompassed most of the field was the most useful angle for film study. With film study I'm focusing on one of two s. Either I'm confirming my guys were attempting the play called and analyzing their execution and following thru to success or failure or I'm observing an opponent for patterns that may occur over the length of a match or things like tendencies exhibited by specific players. The patterns reflect either intentional or unintentional actions or routines that may be predicted beyond the patterns that are a nearly universal element of playing the format. For example, you don't need film study to know that if an opponent loses a corner player they are likely to try and re-fill the spot quickly. But film study (or live study for that matter) can tell you that #34 always goes to a particular prop OTB or that Team X shows a strong tendency to fill a particular prop on the delay or as a secondary move. Unfortunately, the way the match videos are edited they don't provide enough consistent info to make those sorts of determinations.

What the Galveston videos may provide is some how-to (or even some how-not-to) info for developing players on playing specific positions on the field. There is quite a lot of snake play in the videos as well as lots of shots of individuals playing particular props that might be useful to some players.

For any teams interested in film study let me suggest you focus the majority of your efforts on filming and analyzing your own team first. Knowledge of an opponent may provide useful information but the advantages gained are seldom the difference between winning and losing--though they can be. Breaking your own team down will deliver larger rewards, faster. The first priority is a team's ability to go out and execute their game plan. And while it's nearly impossible in practice to keep track of every detail and every player the capability of going back and reviewing film over and over can reveal weaknesses and mistakes that are easily missed otherwise but just as easily addressed when you become aware of them.

Mailbag: Gunfighting Drills

The question, what to do to improve gunfighting skills, is the first mailbag question to come through Facebook. (Thanks!) Since gunfighting is a core element of the modern competitive game I thought the answers might prove useful to a wider audience.
Before you start to moan about more drills this isn't going to be about drills. At least not like you probably think about drills. Well, maybe the one. The thing is I don't like drills either. Sure, there's a few that are absolutely necessary. The problem with ordinary drills though is that they are too often disconnected from the play of the game. It's like working out in the gym with nothing but isolation movements when what you really need--particularly if you're training to augment athletic performance--is complex movements that train your muscles to work in harmony. The same is true of the best paintball drills.

One last thing before you get started. Many players will naturally attempt to find a way around doing what they are supposed to and/or argue/complain about the goal of any drill. My favorite way of keeping everyone on point is to divide the team into groups that will stay together for all the drills. The reason is that it's important to provide immediate consequences for failure. Failure to complete a drill successfully results in running a half lap or full lap of the field. This creates an incentive and reminds the team that failure in competition also has an immediate consequence.

These are team drills (unless you're on a 3-man squad.) The minimum requirement is 6 players. The drills suggested here are given in the order they should be done in as the progression goes from simple to complex.
Begin with a one on one drill. (Yes, this one is pretty much a drill-type drill.) Ideally on a full size field even though you will only use one half (snake side or D-side) at a time. It's simple; two players begin at Home and on a signal break to a nearby bunker which is mirrored by the other player. The object is to take control of the edge, push your opponent off his edge and make the bump to the next bunker (leading to the wire) alive. (The bump should be accomplished gun up and maintaining edge control.)

Follow the first drill up with a two on two variation. The object remains the same but with two players at each end the task becomes more complicated but at the same time there are also more solutions. On the break beginning the drill one player (at each end) moves to the primary, the other remains at Home. Now the first goal is to get a player to the next bunker but it doesn't have to be the player in the primary. Besides increasing the movement options the drill adds an extra move, too. (On most xball type layouts that next move would be into the snake however the field can be set-up as desired.) The drill doesn't end successfully until two bumps are accomplished by a live player. [After the first bump if a player chooses to make a move to the corner that doesn't count as the second bump but is allowed.]

The last drill in this sequence is a half field 3 on 3 race. On either side of the field it's some version of a race to the fifty depending on the layout. Remember, the object is the race. You can either let the players play or restrict them to making their bumps the same way they did in the earlier drills--or a combination of both. Either way the basics of edge control and coordinated movement are in play and the fact it's a race with a specific goal pushes the action.

If you have the time and resources these should be repeated on the opposite side of the field and have the players switch ends of the field so everyone plays with both hands on both sides of the field. (Or, next time you do this group of drills you make sure it's different for everyone from the last time.)

Finally, one very positive way to let the players have some fun (and improve in the process) is to set-up a compact field approx. 80-100 feet long and 50 feet wide. Play it as a 3-on-3 and if you have enough players or want to share some practice with another team you can play a mini round robin-type tourney. The value in this is the dimensions. As long as it doesn't have too many props it keeps the action fast and very close. It forces players to make fast decisions and develop fast reflexes--or else. At the same time it replicates most gunfighting relationships that come into play in regular competition but is also very unforgiving of poor technique, slow and sloppy play. Want to hone your gun skills razor sharp? This is the one to separate the men from the boys (or girls.)

Measuring Skill

I probably could have added identifying skills as it's own post but I've chosen to give that subject a cursory review instead in order to put measuring skills into context. (Besides, most of y'all should have a fairly good idea what the list of paintball skills is.) The basis distinction to make is between skills (learned) and innate attributes which are mostly physical, like running speed, reflexes and hand/eye coordination. It's not quite that simple. of course. Take movement for example. Movement is a skill because when we talk about it in the context of competitive paintball it is more than the physical act of moving yet at the same time the ability to move effectively can certainly be enhanced by a player's natural attributes. A rough list of skills looks something like this; movement, body awareness (applies to both staying alive & playing your cover) and the group of gun-related skills; accuracy, laning, gunfighting, running & gunning, etc. The list could as easily be broken down further.

A skill (or skills) is measured against a standard, either an absolute or shifting standard, and or by comparison with the same skill displayed by others. This can be a simple or a complex problem in the evaluation (or comparison) process and is seldom cut & dry no matter how scientific (or statistical) the process appears. For example, take a look at starting pitchers in MLB. The bottom line is wins and losses but baseball is a team game and the pitcher must rely in part on teammates while competing against the opposing pitcher. So in evaluating the skill of a particular pitcher other statistics are considered as well. Like ERA, strike outs, walks, velocity, number of effective pitches and command of those pitches. But even with all the numbers experts can disagree when comparing player to player. It's one thing to evaluate a player's skills and determine they fit into category X. It's another thing altogether to compare two category X players and conclusively determine which one is better. (This is largely because skill isn't all that goes into making great players--and that's the subject of the last post in this series, Skill Is Not Enough. That, and different judges may have differing priorities when evaluating individual players.)

In paintball it's generally not too difficult to assess the relative skills of the players. This sort of measurement is really a way of sorting any group of players into a hierarchy, from worst to first. And (without experience) may not tell you anything about how good any group's best player(s) really are. You can tell from a player's posture in a prop whether they are trained or not, sloppy or tight--but you won't know how effectively they can bring their skills to bear until they are in a competition environment and confronted by others of varying degrees of skill. And the ultimate measure of a player's skills is the ability to execute in the crucible of competition--and, once again, this is not an issue of skill alone.
Another way of measuring the skill of a player is against an objective standard. When laning it's putting a stream of paint on target quickly enough to create the opportunity to eliminate a player. Successfully and repeatedly. Drilling to develop this skill demonstrates in concrete terms--either you hit the runner or you didn't--a player's effectiveness or lack thereof. The same measurement by standard applies in virtually all training situations and is one method of determining improvement.

Next, Skills Is Not Enough.

Competitive Paintball as Recreation?

Another detour before returning to the subject of promotions. (Like you didn't know this was gonna happen. I am nothing if consistently inconsistent.)

Between the recent post, 'No Easy Answers' and the comments engendered here's what I'm thinking. The PSP is swell as is their Big Plan for universalizing player classification and creating a horizontal network of related (by format & rules) regional events that uniformly provide a vertical path (or ladder) of competition that culminates in an exclusive pro division. Terrific.
But it may still be too much. Regardless of division this is serious competitive paintball, top to bottom. (Despite dumbing the format down from xball matches to Race 2-whatever.) It's a fast paced, athletically demanding game aimed at a narrow, youthful demographic. Which again, is awesome when you're talkin' hardcore paintball as sport. But it also excludes a lot of paintball players. It may be it really does cater to the One Percenters.
At the other end of the spectrum is the newb and occasional rec player (plus some percentage of your average walk-on/scenario/Big Game types) who don't have any readily recognizable paintball skills. (Oh please, it's true and everybody knows it.) Could be they don't know any better but whatever--they enjoy playing the game the way they play it. It seems to me that leaves a lot of middle ground and includes a majority of paintball players--even pump players--who understand the rudiments of the game and either want to learn more or find more challenges within paintball without going to the tournament extreme. After all, wasn't that part of the point with the introduction of speedball?

Which is one reason why I'm all in favor of the (attempted) resurgence of woods-based tourney ball along with the crossover type events like the UWL or the SPPL. But even with those additions (alternatives?) there's still a big gap between that sorta paintball and what happens in the PSP (or the NPPL for that matter.) A few months ago I tossed out the idea of a mechanical marker tournament event in order to bring the competitive game closer to the typical paintballer. (And there's no reason it couldn't work and be a lot of fun except perhaps that nobody wants to do it that way anymore--although if they gave it a try I think it would change a lot of minds. Be that as it may--) The CFOA is experimenting with 3-man and pump only events are making a comeback. What all of these have in common is a tournament organization and a presumption of rudimentary paintball skills.

But what about the players who don't want to make the move into organized tourney play but want something more from their paintball experience than the same game they got the first time they played? There is a broad diversity of ways to play competitive paintball and I don't see why it should be the exclusive property of tournament competition. For example, not everybody who enjoys playing basketball plays with the same level of skill, natural ability or desire to be the best. But you don't have to be working for a college scholarship to want to play a more demanding version of the game than the one you play in your neighbor's driveway. And it seems to me that there is a largely untapped opportunity to provide competitive style paintball in a more relaxed, less organized way as an option of play at the local level. Every second Saturday might feature an informal 3-man "event" on the speedball field. (Or alternate months using a woodsball field.) No entry, no prizes, regular field refs, restrict as desired and let the players play. Just for fun. Sure, maybe it's a little extra work but not much beyond taking the time and making the effort to promote it to everyone who comes through the doors. (Yes, I know, there are fields that do stuff like this, just not enough.)

And of course there is one thing missing. I'll be covering that in the next post, Paintballl 101.

Winging It

VFTD has reached a new low. I tweeted--damn, does that sound pathetic--about this post before I wrote it. And that was some hours ago as the %$#&*%@# computer did it again. A seemingly benign file--at least according to the three dozen security programs I'm now running--was planted in the start-up and when I tried to disable it, it initiated the rogues and hijackers all over. Again. Here's hoping this time it's finally really gone 'cus I'm sure y'all are nearly as tired of this as I am. (But it's cathartic for me to help you feel my pain.)

Anyway, the title of this post is not a Billy Wing reference (although I will be securing trademark rights in a matter of minutes.) It's actually a reference to that most common of so-called poor techniques, the chicken wing, in which the player's supporting arm (hand on foregrip commonly) is elevated perpendicular to his/her body with the elbow pointing outward. (Take a breath.) And frequently flapping like a chicken wing when attempting to run & gun. Last time I visited the topic of running & gunning I left off with some drills here. (Was it really that long ago? I could'a missed a post. Or two.) For even more on running & gunning look here.

Let's talk technique. Everybody makes fun of the chicken wing. Almost as many as do it. I'm not a stickler for forcing proper technique on my guys when their technique diverges but that's only because they've already proved they have the skill set required even when their technique isn't ideal. But just because you see some pro doing things wrong it is not a free pass for you to do the same--or insist on doing wrong whatever it is you're doing wrong. Bad habits and bad technique are bad because they aren't efficient or effective for most players. That is the attitude that will see most of y'all getting old and gray in D3.
If you can run & shoot effectively while chicken winging you're done here--but--you know, and I know, you can't hardly hit the broad side of a barn from the inside standing still. The funny thing is it isn't necessarily the "wing" that's limiting your effectiveness. It ain't helping but if it was as simple as knocking off the chicken winging everybody could be a hero. My real problem is you can't wing it while playing a bunker. (Or if you do you're preparing for a future as a rec baller.) And that means you're switching between techniques to accomplish the same thing and you will not, let me repeat that, will not execute either one of them with the same effectiveness as if you practiced a consistent technique. (Not rocket science but it appears to be eluding more than a few of y'all.) And without lots of practice and a consistent technique you will not be an effective runner & gunner. Period.

Now go back and read those old posts and next time I'll talk about ways to make your running & gunning more effective.

The Monday Poll

For the rare few actually paying attention, yes, I pulled last week's poll early. What really happened however is that last week when I set it up I neglected to take into account I was posting it late. What can I say? You get a little older and it takes more than 24 hours to get the Vegas out of your system. Anyway, it wasn't a high interest poll for reasons I'll get into in the review below.

This week's topic is easy, highly speculative, probably partisan and so simple a squid could do it while sleepwalking. Which teams will be playing semi-pro in the PSP next season? Lots of talk and not much substance out there right now. Just the way we like it so now is the time to test your ability to prognosticate (sounds better than blind, dumb luck guess, doesn't it?) and/or your insider knowledge with a Monday Poll. You can pick as many teams as you like from the list--so you get to cast more than one vote (if you're from Chicago that'll seem normal)--and if you pick 'Other' please include who you had in mind in the comments. I feel compelled to remind you that many teams, particularly in the higher divisions, when arbitrarily propelled upward by the PSP tend to fall apart. (Okay, it isn't arbitrary but it might as well be since the primary purpose isn't about merit or excellence or earning it.) And that the notion currently floating around that some NPPL Pro teams are considering joining the used-to-be-called-xball fun makes competitive but not business sense (to me) but who cares? I say run with it while the running is good. The list is ridiculously long but if it only included the obvious it wouldn't be much fun, would it? There are some CPL teams and some NPPL teams not already playing in the PSP. And of the lower division PSP teams only Fierce and CEP players will be reclassified from D1 to semi-pro but who knows who else might jump in. Oh, and I've included last year's regulars too. Will they be staying, bumping up or fading away? You decide.

Monday Poll in Review
I'd like to say this poll ruffled a few feathers 'cus I'd come off as edgy and dangerous (and maybe even cool) but so much for wishful thinking. A look at the total number of votes is a clear indicator the poll didn't attract much attention. I think there's probably two principle reasons why. Many aren't that interested in the NPPL 3.0 (the league formerly known as the USPL) and most are hesitant (even anonymously) to offer an opinion on technology that frequently isn't all that well understood. Even by serious ballers. I'll leave it to you to decide which had a greater impact.
Of those that did vote on the idea of a league certified gun board the results were 31% generally positive and 64% generally negative. Of particular interest in the negative votes was the fact that the potential for added cost to the player wasn't a significant factor as it garnered only 8% of the votes. For those of you scoring at home that's 2 to 1 who broadly don't see a league certified board as a step in the right direction. But while it's all well and good to test which way the wind is blowing (it must be 'cus everybody in DC does it all the time, right?) public opinion doesn't tell us anything about the actual merits.

So is a league certified board a good idea or isn't it? Before that can be answered we need to know the intended purpose. If , for example, the notion is to standardize gun performance as a further measure for leveling the playing field that's one thing. If the idea is seen as a method to improve enforcement of the rules that's something else again. In either case the predicate is the highly dubious (if not outright delusional) notion that modern electropneumatic markers can be regulated (and policed) for "real" semi-automatic functionality as the state of the art currently stands. Or if, at some point in time, tamper resistant technology can effectively monitor the operating technology in such a way that the benefit outweighs the cost and complexity involved. Regardless the primary objective is preserving so-called semi-auto play and that is the crux of the problems all the versions of the NPPL have had with consistent rules enforcement and/or the perception of fair play when it comes to gun performance.

Robots versus Ninjas, Part 2

Given that the most recent related post, Robots vs. Ninjas (Part 1) is a month old already here's a linked list of the related posts in chronological order; Saving Xball, Defining the Game, An Informal Survey, Robots vs. Ninjas, Part 1 if you'd like to catch up or refresh your memory. If not I'll be happy, no thrilled, to summarize the previous posts for all you lazy slackers. Like hell I will. Exercise your finger and click your mouse.

Robots vs. Ninjas, Part 1 puts the differences between the two dominant formats into perspective–though with the bankruptcy of Pacific Paintball the differences, both real and apparent, are rather a moot point. Xball, of one sort or another, is the competitive paintball format for the foreseeable future. The issue now becomes if Xball promotes a certain kind of player–and, broadly defined, I think it does–is it the kind of player we want? And if it isn't what can be done about it? In one sense the robots vs. ninjas debate is resistance from the traditionalists to what they perceive as a diminished game or a less desirable game than the one they played. Without arguing the merits it is important in moving forward to define what the game should be and then what are the skills and abilities required to compete effectively. Or perhaps vice versa. Start with the play of the game as players and go from there in building the game around the desired skills and abilities.
Let's take a brief look at the Russian Legion as their example is instructive. The Legion burst onto the international pro scene on the basis of a new-to-paintball method of training players. It inspired imitation (to varying degrees) and has had a significant impact on competitive paintball. Their methodology also is (was) clearly better suited to the Xball format than to 7-man. The abbreviated reason for this is in Xball it is possible to prepare for, and exert some influence over, more aspects of the actual play of the game than in 7-man. (It is the element of relative unpredictability (more or less) in 7-man that is the missing element for many of the traditionalists because within the window of unpredictability there exists more time and more freedom to make individual play of the game decisions.) For the Legion then the status quo would seem to be ideal yet in recent seasons they have moved to a roster mix that is nearly evenly split between U.S.-based players and Russians.
So what do we want? What should separate the best from the rest? Is it purely gun skills? Physical tools? Something else? Something more? If we can't define the skill set(s), both physical and mental, that comprise the ideal player the players will still be subject to forces that shape their development. Those forces are our training routines and the rules of the game we play.
Paintball has been developing more sophisticated training methods but still relies heavily on scrimmaging. This isn't unreasonable but it is inefficient. Scrimmaging is a necessary element but it is very paint intensive and is only a valuable learning tool when conducted by knowledgeable players and/or coaches focused on learning and improving. It easily reduces to just playing paintball, which is more fun but not always very productive.
Right now in the U.S. there is a bias toward scrimmaging regardless of other factors. In part that is because that is how it's 'always' been done. And among the pros the growing scarcity of resources and time for practice forces hard decisions and tends to push teams toward the familiar. And finally the early release of competition layouts makes the scrimmage imperative. No team would willingly cede practical knowledge of and familiarity with the competition layout when they are convinced their competition will have that knowledge and familiarity. If the layout is available it must be played.
In the short term the only viable way to have a dramatic impact in shaping the ideal player is to not release the layouts in advance. (Here I'm really focusing on the pro–and new semi-pro–division where the impact would be the greatest.) This is so because we are in an era of mostly very limited resources and as a consequence less time to prepare. And until (if ever) paintball can boast real professionals the time, resources and commitment will always be an issue. The non-release would free up the teams to develop different training regimes that would focus on a player's adaptability and capacity to read the changing field and react on the fly. The physical skills would remain the same but this change would dramatically alter the mental game and it's application to the Xball format. The result would be a much more demanding and intense game given the speed Xball tends to promote. (You'd eventually have better players and a better game. IM not very HO, of course.) There would also be a variety of other, I think, positive results as well from this one change.

This post takes some shortcuts in the interest of brevity (can you believe it?) and may as a consequence be a fairly demanding read. If you have any questions or just want to be argumentative don't hesitate to post a comment.

Yes, I know what I posted on Saturday. Get off my back. It's still Saturday somewhere in the South Pacific, right? You know, the whole international dateline thing.