Playing Time in WS or National Tournaments?

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Jul 25, 2015
148
0
Recently finished a World Series with a new team (started fall 2014) and now is the time when most parents seem to vent their frustrations in my experience coaching. At the first team meeting, which included one parent minimum, the head coach made it clear that every effort would be made to get all players playing time in pool games but when it came to elimination games the 9 players that gave the team the best chance to win would play. Anyone that was not happy with that was encouraged to find another team - two did.

Everyone seemed to get along fine throughout the season but when it came to the World Series things blew up. Specifically two players that did not see much playing time during the elimination bracket, had parents that blew up. Naturally, Facebook got involved and some accusations of "daddy ball" were made by these two parents about how their children were "treated like dogs". Regardless of the fact that the two players in question had the lowest batting averages, lowest on base percentage, were two of the weakest defensive players (accounted for based on errors), and only played in elimination games sparingly during the season - coaches were playing daddy ball.

Long story to ask this: As a coach, do you guarantee playing time in elimination games in a World Series or other similar tournament at the end of the season? OR Do you play the players that give you the best opportunity to win?
 
Jun 27, 2011
5,089
0
North Carolina
Parents are understandably upset, IMO.

Of course, that's not knowing all the facs. What age group? Which World Series? How many players on the roster? Have those weaker players been focused and putting in effort? Those things might mitigate my answer.

But if I were the head coach, here's how I would see it -- Assuming good effort, I believe they all deserve to play. If I've coached a team for 9 months and there are 2-3 girls on the team that are a liability in their World Series, then that's my fault for failing to develop them or putting them on the team in the first place. I'd keep a small roster, maybe 11, and they'd all play significant roles in elimination games. Maybe I bat them all, or maybe 1 is a flex, maybe 1 doesn't play the field, maybe 1 pinch-runs 1 game, bats the next, but they'd all play a role they could feel good about. IMO, kids do not sign up to sit the bench in elimination games, especially not at events where parents are traveling and spending hundreds of dollars. Those are ideas that parents come up with in order to meet their own competitive needs.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2009
3,345
48
Assuming this is not a showcase WS, (jk), the team should be playing to win. You said that they didn't see "much" playing time during elimination games. If they didn't see "any" playing time then they would have a beef.

Showcase teams should play to win also but every player should play in those games.
 
Jun 17, 2009
15,105
0
Portland, OR
Parents are understandably upset, IMO.

Of course, that's not knowing all the facs. What age group? Which World Series? How many players on the roster? Have those weaker players been focused and putting in effort? Those things might mitigate my answer.

But if I were the head coach, here's how I would see it -- Assuming good effort, I believe they all deserve to play. If I've coached a team for 9 months and there are 2-3 girls on the team that are a liability in their World Series, then that's my fault for failing to develop them or putting them on the team in the first place. I'd keep a small roster, maybe 11, and they'd all play significant roles in elimination games. Maybe I bat them all, or maybe 1 is a flex, maybe 1 doesn't play the field, maybe 1 pinch-runs 1 game, bats the next, but they'd all play a role they could feel good about. IMO, kids do not sign up to sit the bench in elimination games, especially not at events where parents are traveling and spending hundreds of dollars. Those are ideas that parents come up with in order to meet their own competitive needs.

I view this as a rec-level type response.

On teams playing at the national level (where travel expenses far exceed a few hundred bucks) it is generally spelled out to the players/families, and frequently (e.g., at every winter workout), that they are responsible for their development.

If you've coached a team for 9 months, and 2 players stand out as not having developed, then it's quite possible that it is their fault for not developing.

The message of ownership for personal development is important. I recommend not failing to deliver that message to your players.
 
Oct 30, 2014
292
18
Seattle
At the first team meeting, which included one parent minimum, the head coach made it clear that every effort would be made to get all players playing time in pool games but when it came to elimination games the 9 players that gave the team the best chance to win would play.

....

Specifically two players that did not see much playing time during the elimination bracket, had parents that blew up.

Assuming everything you said was correct its totally understandable to sit girls if they knew thats what your getting into.

That being said its case by case whether the daddy ball issue is valid.
 
Jun 27, 2011
5,089
0
North Carolina
I view this as a rec-level type response.

On teams playing at the national level (where travel expenses far exceed a few hundred bucks) it is generally spelled out to the players/families, and frequently (e.g., at every winter workout), that they are responsible for their development.

If you've coached a team for 9 months, and 2 players stand out as not having developed, then it's quite possible that it is their fault for not developing.

The message of ownership for personal development is important. I recommend not failing to deliver that message to your players.

I understand that my viewpoint is not widely popular, but I stand by it.

I believe, for example, that an 11-player 12U team coached by the philosophy that I spelled out will experience greater player development and enjoyment of the game in the long run than one coached by the philosophy of the OP. And I believe those things are more important to kids than the chance that you might win another game or two. There comes a time when playing time should become more scarce for those who aren't so valuable. I'm just believe that time comes later than many coaches apparently do.

Also, what is ''playing at a national level"? What the OP described was a World Series. The top youth national championships are not called World Series. I've got a friend whose daughter played at the USFA World Series a couple of weeks ago in the 14U-B division. Were they playing at a national level? There are smaller 14U tournaments going on almost every week of the year that are more difficult to win. When does it become national level?

Another point - The OP tried it his way. How did it turn out? How many more games were won? At what expense?
 
Last edited:
Oct 10, 2011
3,117
0
Our coaches made it clear. ..they will only guarantee 2 games a tournament for each girl. On championship day they will play who they think is best to win. This is different for showcases however and they were actually pretty good at getting girls playing time but there were only 12 girls. Nationals are different and they will play to win. Period. We have no coaches now with daughters on the team so that's not a factor.
 
Jun 27, 2011
5,089
0
North Carolina
Our coaches made it clear. ..they will only guarantee 2 games a tournament for each girl. On championship day they will play who they think is best to win. This is different for showcases however and they were actually pretty good at getting girls playing time but there were only 12 girls. Nationals are different and they will play to win. Period. We have no coaches now with daughters on the team so that's not a factor.

To clarify my position further, what you are describing here - a showcase team that plays nationals - is not the kind of team that I assume is being discussed in the OP, one that is playing in a World Series. When I hear showcase/nationals, I think 16U/18U, college prospects, ASA nationals, etc.. When I hear World Series, I think younger/more developmental. Doesn't mean you aren't trying to win it, though.

DD's 2014 team played in the NSA World Series last year. We really wanted to win it. We thought we could. We took 10 players. Sitting our worst hitter would've helped. But I had no problem whatsoever with batting all 10, and neither did the players. She went about 1-for-12. So be it. Effort wasn't an issue. She just doesn't hit that well to that point in her life.
 
Jun 27, 2011
5,089
0
North Carolina
Note the title of the thread ... "Playing Time in WS or National Tournaments?"

Yes, but question remains. What is a national tournament?

My philosophy for USSSA 12U World Series wouldn't be the same as ASA 18U Gold Nationals.

Also, some of your best advice has been to be process-oriented vs. results-oriented in developing a hitter. At some point, results are the bottom line, both for a team and a hitter. As it applies to youth softball teams, I appear to have a different definition and timeline for the process than do many coaches.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,481
Members
21,445
Latest member
Bmac81802
Top