In pickleball coaching, drills are often designed not just to improve execution, but to shape decision-making and reinforce specific behaviors. One effective technique is to modify scoring by awarding additional points when a targeted action occurs. By changing incentives, coaches can influence how players approach the game and encourage skills that may not naturally appear under pressure.
Professional player Allyce Jones has referred to this concept as a “big point,” where an extra point is tied to a particular shot or decision. When a specific action carries additional value, players are more likely to attempt it in realistic, game-like situations—especially for skills that require patience rather than immediate aggression.
During a recent workshop, we discussed the continued importance of the third shot drop. While modern pickleball has seen the rise of highly effective third shot drives, the third shot drop remains a foundational skill. The challenge is not explaining its value, but creating conditions where players consistently choose it during play.
One player, Perry, suggested awarding an extra point for a successful third shot drop. The idea itself was familiar—we had used similar incentives before—but the response from the group was different this time. Another player suggested calling it the Perry Point, crediting Perry for the idea in the moment.
Once named, the concept took hold immediately.
During games, players began calling it out across the courts:
“You got us a Perry Point.”
“Thanks for the Perry Point.”
What had been a simple scoring adjustment became a shared reference point within the group.
The Perry Point worked not because the mechanic was new, but because it was personal. The idea felt player-generated rather than coach-assigned. Attaching it to someone within the group created ownership and collective buy-in that instruction alone rarely achieves.
This same principle applies well beyond the pickleball court, particularly when leading software teams. Whether the goal is improving documentation, strengthening code reviews, or investing in long-term quality, meaningful change rarely comes from mandates alone. Behaviors tend to stick when ideas emerge from within the team, are recognized publicly, and become associated with a shared moment or person rather than a directive.
People adopt behaviors more readily when they feel ownership over them. When good ideas are surfaced, named, and allowed to belong to the group, learning accelerates and culture reinforces itself.