A familiar practice scene: the coach hits 15 grounders to the same spot. By rep 12 the fielder looks smooth. Practice feels productive.

Then in Saturday's game, the ball comes a step to his left on a funny hop, and he boots it.

Nobody did anything wrong. The drill just did not look much like the game. This article is about how to close that gap, and about what the research can and cannot promise.

Blocked vs. random practice

Blocked practice repeats the same skill the same way before moving on. Fifteen grounders to the same spot. Twenty tee swings at the same height.

Random (or variable) practice mixes it up rep to rep. Grounder to the left, then a slow roller, then one to the right. Inside pitch, then outside.

The classic lab finding, going back to Shea and Morgan in 1979: blocked practice looks better during the session, but random practice often holds up better on later tests. Researchers call this the contextual interference effect.

There is a baseball study too. Hall and colleagues (1994) gave 30 college hitters extra batting practice for six weeks. One group saw fastballs, curves, and changeups in blocks. Another saw them mixed randomly. On the later test, the random group improved about twice as much as the blocked group.

The key idea: How good a drill looks today is not the same as how much players keep. A drill that looks messy can still be doing its job.

The honest caveats

This effect is real in the lab, but it is less reliable on the field and with kids. A 2024 meta-analysis by Czyż and colleagues found a clear benefit of random practice in lab studies, but a near-zero benefit in applied settings. For young participants, the effect was too small to be sure it was there at all.

That fits the “challenge point” idea from Guadagnoli and Lee (2004). Beginners are already challenged by the basic skill, so piling on variety can overload them. As players get more skilled, they need more variety to keep learning.

What this means for us: blocked reps are fine, and often right, when a young player is learning something brand new. Add variety once they can do the basic version most of the time. Do not expect variety alone to transform a team.

Why variety still earns a place

Even setting the lab research aside, game-like practice has other things going for it. The ball comes off a real bat. Players have to read hops and make decisions. And most kids find it more fun than standing in a line, which matters if we want them back tomorrow.

What this looks like at practice

You do not need to throw out your drills. Add variety to how you run them.

Fielding: Once a player can field a ball hit right at them, mix it up. Soft grounders to the left, to the right, slow rollers, and a short hop now and then, with no pattern. Keep speed within what they can handle. A 7-year-old needs soft, playable balls, not hard shots.

Hitting: Mix tee heights and locations instead of 20 swings in one spot. Better yet, rotate tee, soft toss, and coach pitch within one station.

Throwing to bases: Instead of 10 straight throws to first, call a situation before each fungo. “Nobody on, throw to first.” “Runner on first, get the force at second.” The fielder has to pick the base, not just repeat a throw.

The objection: it looks like chaos

It will look messier. Kids will miss more reps. That can feel bad to coaches and players. Tell the kids up front: “This one is supposed to be hard. Mistakes are part of it.” Keep success rates high enough that they stay engaged. If most reps are failing, dial it back.

Try this at practice

Guidelines & sources

Note on certainty: The random-practice advantage is well established in lab studies with adults and in one college baseball study. Evidence in real youth practice settings is weak. Adding game-like variety is still a reasonable, low-risk choice for engagement and decision-making.