Every coach watches. Every fan watches. Every player watches. But does that mean they are studying the game? More importantly, does that mean they are researching it?
Too often, coaches say they “study” great shooters when in reality, they are simply observing them. And even when they take it a step further—breaking down film, identifying trends, and comparing players—most never reach the level of true research.
If we want to move toward evidence-based coaching, we need to be clear about the difference between observing, studying, and researching—because they are not the same thing.
Observing – The Lowest Level of Learning
Observation is the act of watching without structured analysis or deeper investigation. It is the most basic way to acquire information, but it is also the most misleading.
Key Characteristics of Observation:
- Passive and unstructured.
- Highly susceptible to bias—people see what they expect to see.
- Based on anecdotal experiences rather than systematic evaluation.
- Does not separate correlation from causation.
Example in Basketball:
A coach watches Steph Curry shoot and concludes:
“He dips the ball before every shot, so all great shooters must dip the ball.”
This is a surface-level observation with no proof that the dip is the cause of his success. It may be part of his rhythm, but it could also be a neutral habit or even something he has learned to compensate for. Watching alone doesn’t reveal what actually matters.
Studying – Structured, but Still Subjective
Studying involves systematically analyzing observations to find patterns, trends, or principles. This is a step beyond observation, but it still lacks rigorous testing.
Key Characteristics of Studying:
- More structured than observation but still subjective.
- Involves pattern recognition and categorization.
- Often draws from experience, intuition, or video analysis.
- Does not involve controlled testing or proof.
Example in Basketball:
A coach watches hundreds of hours of elite shooters, categorizes their movements, and notices:
“Most great shooters release the ball between 45-50 degrees of launch angle.”
This is better than observation alone, as it identifies a common trend. But it still does not prove causation—it does not tell us whether this range of release angle causes better shooting or if it is simply a coincidence. It also doesn’t account for outliers, skill level, or in-game variability.
Researching – Where Proof Begins
Researching requires empirical validation—testing claims, gathering measurable data, and using objective analysis to separate correlation from causation.
Key Characteristics of Researching:
- Involves controlled experiments or large-scale data analysis.
- Uses measurement tools (motion capture, biomechanics software, statistical analysis).
- Designed to be repeatable and falsifiable.
- Eliminates biases and reduces anecdotal reasoning.
Example in Basketball:
A coach does more than just watch shooters—they measure and analyze:
- Do players who dip the ball actually shoot better?
- Does a 45-50 degree launch angle result in a higher shooting percentage across different players?
- Do biomechanical inefficiencies appear more in low-percentage shooters?
Instead of just assuming something is important because elite shooters do it, research tests whether it actually improves performance.
Why This Matters for Coaches
The majority of coaches who claim they “study” great shooters are simply observing—watching highlights, breaking down clips, and forming conclusions based on what looks right. A smaller number take the next step—studying shooters by identifying trends. But very few actually engage in research, where ideas are tested and validated with objective data.
If we want to move toward evidence-based coaching, we must:
- Acknowledge the gap between observing, studying, and researching.
- Recognize that intuition is not enough—patterns must be tested.
- Differentiate correlation from causation—just because elite shooters do something doesn’t mean it causes their success.
- Commit to learning beyond what’s visible—research is about proving, not assuming.
Most people watch. Fewer study. Almost none research.
If you want to separate yourself as a coach, don’t just watch—seek proof.
