We say we want the truth. Most of the time, we settle for something easier, a story that sounds good but explains nothing.
When thinking starts running in circles
You see it when cause and effect get tangled up:
We’re losing because we’re playing badly. We’re playing badly because we’re losing.
That’s not analysis. That’s a loop.
What circular thinking really is
Circular thinking uses the conclusion as the reason. It feels convincing. It sounds strong. But it doesn’t teach you anything.
“He’s a winner because he wins.”
“That’s a good shot because it went in.”
“We didn’t execute because we didn’t execute.”
None of that is cause and effect. It’s not insight. It’s just verbal word salad.
The draft pick trap
Here’s a classic example:
“He’s a first-round pick, so he should be playing.”
That’s a circle.
Why is he playing? Because he was drafted high.
Why was he drafted high? Because he’s good.
How do we know he’s good? Because he’s playing.
High draft picks get more minutes and more chances to fail. Teams want to prove they were right about their choices, so the loop reinforces itself.
A better question is:
What is he doing, on this floor, in these possessions, that actually helps us win?
Now you’re looking at things like:
Shot quality: EFG%
Turnover rate
Defensive assignments held
Rebounding percentage
You’re turning vague labels into concrete behaviors.
Where it hides in basketball language
Circular thinking slips into everyday phrases:
“We lost because they’re better.”
“He’s clutch because he makes big plays.”
“Our defense was bad because they scored a lot.”
Those lines sound fine, but they don’t advance the story.
Swap the loop for cause:
“We can be a lot better.” As Joe Mazzulla put it: “We had 17 turnovers and allowed 13 offensive rebounds.”
“He’s clutch because he creates separation late and consistently gets to his spots.”
“Our defense broke at the point of attack (no containment) so we ended up in constant rotation, always at a disadvantage.”
Coaches hate to hear, "I know, I know." It’s about what you do, not just what you say you know.
Why we slide into circular thinking
Circular thinking is comfortable. It:
Protects ego – If the story sounds fine, we don’t have to change.
Simplifies complexity – Messy problems get reduced to neat slogans.
Ends the conversation – No more questions, no more digging.
But it also:
Kills feedback – There’s nothing specific to improve.
Hides root causes – The real issues stay buried.
Prevents change – If nothing is identified, nothing is fixed.
How to break the loop
Use a simple, Feynman-like discipline:
Name the outcome “We lost.”
Research the mechanism “We had 18 turnovers, which led to 22 transition points.”
Go a layer deeper “We struggled to handle pressure, loose handles, and too many guys standing instead of relocating to open space.”
Prescribe the work “Daily pressure-handling; clear outlet spacing rules; constraint drills that punish standing still.”
Now the story isn’t just what happened. The story is how we’re going to change what we do so the outcome changes.
A better standard
Don’t just describe the result. Diagnose the cause. Circular thinking protects decisions. Clear thinking improves them.
Lagniappe. "Trust but verify." We have to dig deeper and find out what players understand.
Huge teaching point! Never assume!
— Bob Starkey (@CoachBobStarkey) April 27, 2026
"It's not what you tell your players that counts. It's what they hear."
-Red Auerbach pic.twitter.com/SzmMNX5z0Q
