How many is too many?
- Thread starter JWBECK6299
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
I see you have done this before...seems like this is always how it goes
Every 13 player team I have seen has 4 girls rotating the bench and four sets of parents wondering why they committed to a team who isn't committed to their daughter. If you have a roster of 12 and one can't be there, you have one less girl on the bench. I would rather have a cohesive 12 than an odd man out every practice, and warm up.
Let's look at this from a player/parent perspective. You get up at the crack of dawn on and spend Saturday AND Sunday getting 'sprinkled into games here and there.' When you sit the bench, that is what happens, and it stinks. The parents soon realize that they are subsidizing the kids on the field monetarily, while their own daughter sits. Yes, the ones riding the bench and paying the same money are offsetting the costs for those kids on the field. Meanwhile they have also given up their weekend to subsidize the players who get the PT. That in itself is an opportunity cost, when they could have spent the weekend doing x/y/z. See the double whammy?
Now, let's say that you Mr. Coach decides that twelve is a good number. Most people think that when a coach rosters 12 players, three kids have to sit, and well--three extra players is a good number for insurance and all...
Not true!
Herein lies the problem. As a coach, you do a great job of finding time to sprinkle in your bench players . You are conscientious to give them a fair amount of PT so that they develop, stay happy, etc. Now, what happens when you get those three bench players their playing time? Say that you play them around 50%. More than fair, right? What happens is that THREE ADDITIONAL PLAYERS ALSO SIT THE BENCH 50% OF THE TIME. You see, when your roster is twelve, HALF of your team's players are part-timers. You don't have three kids/sets of parents who turn cold because of bench time...you have SIX!
I recall seeing a 10u team at a tournament last year and noticing 4 kids on the bench. I commented to one of my assistants that the coach has EIGHT sets of very-soon-to-be-unsatisfied parents on his hands. Unsatisfied parents become a cancer, and who wants eight out of thirteen of those!
Having coached for several years, I also know the coach perspective and the reasons for wanting/needing more players. I get it. I also get the pool games, bat-the-roster, free substitution, etc. Put yourself in the kids/parents shoes though. If you are able, build a directory of 'fill-ins.' These are pick-up players that may/may not be available on any given weekend. Keep some spare uniforms (various sizes) and allow those kids to play for free when needed. It is easy to build a rapport with such 'guest' players and parents. As a rule, they fully understand the role and the circumstances and are cool with it. Then you can keep your roster low...say ten, eleven at most and your coaching life will have fewer headaches. YES, the whole team subsides the fill-in player in this scenario, but that is better than having six fully-paid, fully committed players feeling like THEY are the fill-in.
Cheers!
VW
Now, let's say that you Mr. Coach decides that twelve is a good number. Most people think that when a coach rosters 12 players, three kids have to sit, and well--three extra players is a good number for insurance and all...
Not true!
Herein lies the problem. As a coach, you do a great job of finding time to sprinkle in your bench players . You are conscientious to give them a fair amount of PT so that they develop, stay happy, etc. Now, what happens when you get those three bench players their playing time? Say that you play them around 50%. More than fair, right? What happens is that THREE ADDITIONAL PLAYERS ALSO SIT THE BENCH 50% OF THE TIME. You see, when your roster is twelve, HALF of your team's players are part-timers. You don't have three kids/sets of parents who turn cold because of bench time...you have SIX!
I recall seeing a 10u team at a tournament last year and noticing 4 kids on the bench. I commented to one of my assistants that the coach has EIGHT sets of very-soon-to-be-unsatisfied parents on his hands. Unsatisfied parents become a cancer, and who wants eight out of thirteen of those!
Having coached for several years, I also know the coach perspective and the reasons for wanting/needing more players. I get it. I also get the pool games, bat-the-roster, free substitution, etc. Put yourself in the kids/parents shoes though. If you are able, build a directory of 'fill-ins.' These are pick-up players that may/may not be available on any given weekend. Keep some spare uniforms (various sizes) and allow those kids to play for free when needed. It is easy to build a rapport with such 'guest' players and parents. As a rule, they fully understand the role and the circumstances and are cool with it. Then you can keep your roster low...say ten, eleven at most and your coaching life will have fewer headaches. YES, the whole team subsides the fill-in player in this scenario, but that is better than having six fully-paid, fully committed players feeling like THEY are the fill-in.
Cheers!
VW
Last edited:
Two points that I think matter here.
1. Where does the improvement happen?
2. Does being on team where you play every inning of every game truly prepare you for school/college ball?
Point 1
In my mind, improvement for most players should happen in practice, rather than games. In a weekend, how many ground balls will a shortstop get -- an average of 1 to 2 per game, maybe? In practice, she will get dozens of ground balls and throws. How many fly balls and throws will an outfielder get in a game vs. practice? How many swings will batters get? Yes, game action is important, but if your expectation that playing in games is the basis of player development, then you're likely to miss the mark with your DD's development.
I personally think that this thinking is why so many 8U, 10U and 12U phenoms never pan out -- they have great skills at an early age, they move around to new teams that are all about playing games -- not practice -- and by the time they get to 14U, 16U, etc., they haven't progressed at all because the past four years all they had been doing is chasing trophies. For this reason, I personally think that there shouldn't be any national champsionships for any age group under 14U.
Point 2
When you have a 10 player roster, pretty much everyone plays every inning of every game, regardless of how well they practice, how they perform in games or even what the game situations are. Which is why, I think, players struggle when they go to high school or college and are part of 15, 18, 20 player rosters. They aren't used to competing for playing time. They aren't used to finding and excelling at a specific role on the team. They aren't used to being mentally prepared to step in to pinch hit, or pinch run, or be a defensive replacement.
Overall, you could make the argument that roster size should vary by age group -- that younger age groups should have smaller rosters, so that the ratio of coaches to players allow for more instruction and personal attention, and to give them more game action -- but teams at the older levels need larger rosters to start introducing some of the more advanced mental preparation -- such as competition and finding your role.
1. Where does the improvement happen?
2. Does being on team where you play every inning of every game truly prepare you for school/college ball?
Point 1
In my mind, improvement for most players should happen in practice, rather than games. In a weekend, how many ground balls will a shortstop get -- an average of 1 to 2 per game, maybe? In practice, she will get dozens of ground balls and throws. How many fly balls and throws will an outfielder get in a game vs. practice? How many swings will batters get? Yes, game action is important, but if your expectation that playing in games is the basis of player development, then you're likely to miss the mark with your DD's development.
I personally think that this thinking is why so many 8U, 10U and 12U phenoms never pan out -- they have great skills at an early age, they move around to new teams that are all about playing games -- not practice -- and by the time they get to 14U, 16U, etc., they haven't progressed at all because the past four years all they had been doing is chasing trophies. For this reason, I personally think that there shouldn't be any national champsionships for any age group under 14U.
Point 2
When you have a 10 player roster, pretty much everyone plays every inning of every game, regardless of how well they practice, how they perform in games or even what the game situations are. Which is why, I think, players struggle when they go to high school or college and are part of 15, 18, 20 player rosters. They aren't used to competing for playing time. They aren't used to finding and excelling at a specific role on the team. They aren't used to being mentally prepared to step in to pinch hit, or pinch run, or be a defensive replacement.
Overall, you could make the argument that roster size should vary by age group -- that younger age groups should have smaller rosters, so that the ratio of coaches to players allow for more instruction and personal attention, and to give them more game action -- but teams at the older levels need larger rosters to start introducing some of the more advanced mental preparation -- such as competition and finding your role.
I think the two proceeding posts illustrate why there simply is not a right answer to this question there are simply different approaches and you have to figure out which one is for you.
I think the biggest thing that need to happen is the coach before the player joins the team needs to very clearly articulate, preferably on paper via a team or organizational philosophy what approach is being taken. The problems occur when parents think one thing but then something else happen. Now for those parents who are told up front and think they can handle watching Suzie sit the bench half the game then realize they can't it is now their problem and not yours as a coach.
I think the biggest thing that need to happen is the coach before the player joins the team needs to very clearly articulate, preferably on paper via a team or organizational philosophy what approach is being taken. The problems occur when parents think one thing but then something else happen. Now for those parents who are told up front and think they can handle watching Suzie sit the bench half the game then realize they can't it is now their problem and not yours as a coach.
