Thread by @KevinAlschuler

The @SeattleKraken are struggling with this scenario of scoring and then giving it right back. It really sets up perfectly for a #resilience and behavior change intervention - classic work for those of us in sport psychology. A thread 🧵: 1/13

https://twitter.com/sound_hockey/status/1477519754516594688

By my count, 24 times a @SeattleKraken 3rd period goal was followed by an opponent goal. 6 (25%) happened in <1 minute; another 6 happened within 1-5 minutes. Of those 12, ~6 times the Kraken had either just taken the lead, tied the game, or gotten it to within 1. 2/13

It is clear that - particularly in the third period - the first ~5 minutes after scoring is a danger zone for the @SeattleKraken. The optimist in me wonders what would happen if they could weather that storm - I bet, more often than not, they would not give up a goal at all. 3/13

The natural inclination is to address this by “try harder”… “gotta play better”… “can’t let it happen”… “gotta find a way”. But they are already trying hard. As Larsson says, they are not trying to get scored on (obviously!). 4/13

So here it is: This is not solved by trying harder. It is not solved by searching for a way to “play better”. They try hard enough; they play well enough to not have this issue. It requires addressing the “what”, “why”, and “how”: 5/13

*WHAT* is happening? Specifically, what are the differences in how they play in those 5 minutes post-scoring relative to how they play at other points in the game. What are the objective differences? What are the unobservable (such as psychological) differences? 6/13

*WHY* is this happening? Why is scoring opening them up to this vulnerability? The assessment has to be multidimensional - skill, strategy, fitness, psychology, etc. It is reasonably likely that it is >1 factor that is influencing this scenario. 7/13

*HOW* can this change? Here I refuse the @Nike answer ("just do it"). If it were that easy, they'd already be doing it. So...how can they go about things differently? How do they want to be playing? Objectively, what are the 1, 2, or 3 things they need to key in on? … 8/13

… And then you have to go beyond identifying those 1, 2, 3 things - you have to train them. Practice the scenario: identifying what the trigger will be (we just scored), practice implementing the plan, get so good at it that it will reliably be there when you need it. 9/13

This is resilience training at its core. How do you thrive in the face of adversity? (Here: how do you perform at your best in a situation where right now you are not?) What skills will you lean on? How will you truly make sure they are there when you need them? 10/13

Every team has something like this every season. Those who figure it out benefit immensely. In this case, the 6 instances turned wins or ties (6-12 pts) into losses or ties (0-6 pts). @SeattleKraken are 12 pts out of the playoffs. Math says it would make a HUGE difference. 11/13

Here’s a relevant example: Early in the 2019 season, @SeawolvesRugby showed a knack for giving up a try and then giving up another one shortly thereafter, turning a -5 or -7 pt incident into -10 to -14. At best it was making life difficult; at worst it was costing games. … 12/13

… The intervention was *not* how to keep teams from scoring at all; teams will score. Instead, we set up the first score as a trigger for using the resilience skills we identified to prevent the second score. It worked and became a piece of a championship-winning recipe. /end

P.S. Its worth adding the disclaimer that needing 3rd period goals to claw back the game is probably not how you want to play day after day. This was meant to be an example of how we can use analytics to identify a target situation and then layer on a sport psych intervention 🤓

https://twitter.com/emeraldcityhky/status/1477522755033600001