Constraints - individual, task, environment. They help shape and form the structure of a biological system searching for a functional state of organization. What is interesting as I see these ideas pop up more and more in the baseball world is how they are being used to sort of "baptize" the way we were already coaching. That is, here is a problem I've identified (wrong mechanics) so use constraints to get more to the technical model, often pulling the athlete out of the performer-environment relationship (I've been hearing a lot the phrase "constraint based drills"). Within the literature, constraint manipulation is spoken of as taking options away that are non-functional (i.e. don't help me do the thing in the game) or relied on too frequently, thus narrowing the athletes solution space. But this word is increasingly being used to get athletes to move in a more technically sound way, devoid of the actual problem they are embedded in. There are undoubtedly more "technical" things I still see in my guys that may be contributing to their lack of performance on the field. But the main way I've used constraint manipulation has been in the live environment, to help expose athletes to different problems to solve. I still have a rich history of coaching background that was technically focused. I'm still open to how a nudge here or there to explore different movement solutions may help an athlete. I have to acknowledge success stories of guys making changes and seeing positive benefits. But I'd also caution others to not draw too many linear relationships when dealing with complex systems. I'd also ask us not ignore the trail of dead bodies who did all the drills that were "individualized" for them and still stunk at pitching in a game. Start with the game and the problems you need to solve there. This is the main place the power of constraints can be leveraged.

One of the hardest ideas for coaches to let go of: decontextualized, isolated practice is not the best way to use time. Intuitively it totally makes sense when you read this quote. It is actually quite crazy how much of coaching is built on this premise. But practically it is extremely hard to implement. We see pro/college teams do it ("if it's good enough for them it should be good enough for us!"). Or we face an uphill battle because we are going against the mainstream idea of what coaching is. It takes as much (if not more) faith to believe that practicing something that barely looks like the sport will transfer compared to trying something new and practicing in a way that looks, feels and acts more like the real sport.

You would do well to pick up Coaching the Problem-Solving Athlete by @MovementMiyagi. Tons of rich quotes like this. This one stuck with me. I see tons of talented youth around who do all sorts of narrow movement patterning. It works...sometimes. But when it doesn't, all I can wonder is if we just trained them from the get-go to be more adaptable, how good could they be?