PROBLEM

Shooting machines have always helped basketball players get volume in practice, but games expose a different problem. When the crowd gets loud and the pressure grows, players hesitate, force shots, or shrink when they are needed most. Teams lose because players struggle to adapt and deliver under stress. Coaches are looking for more ways to encourage players to practice like they play. The increasing interest and demand for these types of training tools and experiences made it clear that this was an opportunity worth exploring. 

DISCOVER

Through observation, performance patterns, and conversations with coaches, a clear pattern emerged: players rarely trained under conditions that forced pressure and meaningful decisions under stress. Training tools often addressed either reps or pressure, but very few emphasized both. Creating a one-stop shop that provides a complete training suite was a gap in current training options.

To get things started, I facilitated a concept brainstorming session, and through rapid ideation, 40+ pressure-based concepts were generated. Every concept needed to work on our existing products and induce pressure in some way. I facilitated an additional session and drove the group to narrow the list to eight through dot voting

DEFINE

From there, I ran a survey that helped the team cut through the pile of ideas and pick ones that would actually change how players train, instead of adding complications to training. Most of the pressure-based concepts tested as true delighters, but not every idea landed. Several concepts we expected to perform well tested as indifferent, which forced us to narrow more aggressively than planned.

Competitive and feedback-driven modes drove the most satisfaction, while more standard, scenario-driven ideas fell flat. That clarity helped us focus the roadmap on features that elevate training by making it more fun instead of adding complexity.

SOLUTION

Based on the survey results, we selected a focused suite of three pressure-based modes, balancing user impact, seasonal relevance, and ease of adoption. We sequenced each release to match real training patterns and prioritized ideas that players and coaches could understand and use immediately over more complex alternatives.

Me vs Me (Spring / Offseason)
Players compete against their personal best in real time, shot for shot. This lets them repeat familiar drills while instantly seeing whether they’re ahead of or behind their best performance, making solo workouts more competitive, ultimately causing players to use the machines longer and more often.

Knockdown (Playoffs)
A scoring-based game that introduces real consequences. The last shot at each location is worth more points, and one location boosts the points of every shot. Players can run the drill repeatedly and track how their scores stack up over time or against others on their team

Green Light Challenge (Pre-Season)
A timed challenge across seven locations where players must hit two shots in a row to advance. The number of spots “collected” becomes the score, with skill thresholds and weekly and monthly leaderboards, so teammates using the same machine can compete.

Together, these modes transform the machine from a repetition tool into a decision-making environment where pressure, competition, and consequences are part of every workout.

RESULTS

Since launch, players have taken millions of shots using these pressure-based modes.

These features have become:

• A core part of how players train under pressure

• A go-to story and value prop for Sales

• A key differentiator for us in the marketplace, with no other competitors offering anything similar

More importantly, they shifted the product from helping players get more reps to helping them perform when it matters.

MY ROLE

• Owned the end-to-end process, from deciding what to explore to aligning with leadership, running research, and using the results to set product direction

• Led concepts from “pie in the sky” ideas to validated features by facilitating ideation, narrowing the field, designing the research approach, running survey analysis, and presenting findings to drive prioritization

• Owned the design process (not the hands-on design) by defining requirements and scope, setting timelines, running design reviews, and partnering with design and engineering to keep quality high and scope realistic

• Tested new builds as we got closer to launch, to make sure features worked as intended and to surface usability issues and edge cases early

• Partnered with Sales and Marketing in weekly go-to-market syncs to align messaging, timing, and enablement so features weren’t just built, but actually understood and used

WHY I’M SHOWING THIS WORK

I’m sharing this because it shows how I take fuzzy, high-level ideas and turn them into real products used by real players. It’s a snapshot of how I get things done by:

• Identifying the problem behind surface-level symptoms

• Using research and structured frameworks to make decisions, not opinions

• Leading teams from early concept through validation, delivery, and launch

• Balancing innovation with practicality to ship features that actually get used

• Partnering across design, engineering, sales, and marketing to drive real impact

Details have been intentionally generalized or modified to respect confidentiality and intellectual property agreements. This case study focuses on my role, process, and decision-making rather than proprietary implementation details.