Loyalty...it is a two way street

[Little Angels Softball]

Why do coaches assume that parents are inept at evaluating talent?

I find it interesting that two coaches are so sensitive to that dreaded topic "daddyball." While there are undoubtedly coaches' daughters who are genuine studs, there are far more who are beneficiaries of nepotism, especially at younger age groups.

DD and I spent the last four months looking for a 14U 'A' travel team, and we finally found a good fit with a team that doesn't have a dad managing. We practiced and played friendlies with about a dozen teams and got offers to join from all except one.

Some of these teams had coaches' kids who were studs, albeit at one position. Just because Sally is the ace pitcher, deservedly so, it doesn't mean she should start at shortstop when she's not in the circle. I saw this with two different teams in a "name brand" organization, and it was obvious to parents that were trying to coax me into joining.

What's more prevalent in my neck of the woods is assistant coaches' kids getting the nod over far more talented players. How many errors must a kid make before another kid, who consistently outplays the coach's kid in practice, gets an opportunity to show what she can contribute in a game?

What I've learned is that one has to do their research before committing, because for many teams, loyalty is a one-way street. Go out to a friendly/tourney and watch a prospective team in action. Check Gamechanger (or whatever scorekeeping apps are used) and look at the box scores. Is the team consistently committing 4-5 errors a game week in and week out? Does the team constantly advertise for new players? If so, that team has "Daddyball" written all over it.

I don't mean to paint with such a broad brush, as there are undoubtedly many coaches who don't run their teams like this. However, it happens, and my guess is that it occurs far more often than coaches realize. If you're coaching, you're not going through the grind of the tryout process. Everybody's mindset is a result of their experiences.

I am actually not sensitive to it, at all. I have coached class A ball at a national level for many, many years with only a few of those having a DD on the team. My stripes were earned without it so I am not bothered by the term.

It is just that over the years I have had some of my stiffest competition from teams coached by a parent. And almost always, it has been because said parent had a DD on the team who was a complete superstar and made others on her team better.

I've seen some really good parent coaches and some really bad ones. I've seen some really good professional coaches and some really bad ones.

For me, the term "daddy ball" usually means that a parent started a new team (or joined an organization with a need for coaching) so their DD could be a #1 pitcher. These teams are started because a girl cannot quite crack a rotation on a top team or perhaps she's a #3 and the parents want more circle time. They also are looking for the "marquis effect" of DD being labeled as "a #1 pitcher on an "A" ball team." They attract like-minded folks and usually end up being mediocre at best, sometimes downright embarrassing.

The thing that runs common with the "daddy ball" complaint is that it almost always comes from families with girls who are #10 or greater on the depth chart or who really want their DD to play a certain position that she may not be getting a lot of time at. These exact same complaints turn from "daddy ball" to "playing favorites" when the coach doesn't happen to have a DD on the team.

I only see two types when I evaluate coaches: Those with well-coached teams and those with not-so-well-coached teams.

In 15 years of top-level A ball, after taking out the daddy ball scenario outlined above, I have never been able to draw any correlation between whether either of those are more or less apt to be ran by parent coaches or pro coaches.

 

[FP26]

I agree with LAS. In some cases the "daddy ball" label is well deserved. And I fully understand why parents are annoyed with that type of situation. However, I have seen equally as many parents that use "daddy ball" as a convenient excuse for a situation they are not happy with.

 

[PA SB Dad]

As a non-parent coach, I readily admit I play favorites - I love kids who work hard, are fearless, and want to win. I do not like kids who think they should get playing time just because they show up to practice.

 

[NorthMS]

Many of the best teams on our area have Dad's with their DD on the team. The DD is usually one of, if not the best players on the team. Yes, some try to build a team for their DD, but those generally last 1-2 years before breaking up.

 

[tim_s]

this one seems to have evolved into a different discussion....


coaching your own is HARD; i've seen it done well and done poorly


in terms of how i treat all of my kids, i do it well......in terms of my own kids, the jury is still out......i AM harder on my two, especially my older girl. she got yanked off SS in a practice earlier this year because her effort was not up to expectations; my trigger WAS quicker than with any other girl.....but as i told her, if i pull my own that quick, no one else has a leg to stand on if i pull them and they complain (always for lack of effort, not result!)


in terms of coaches kids being better: not always, but often.......we run "blind" tryouts for travel.....the girls get numbers, we try and bring in outside evaluators......two years in a row the evaluators said to me afterwards "11...14......3" - picking out the coach kids...... many coach's kids tend to have that extra "it"..... a higher level of understanding, or drive, or work ethic.....not always, but many times......

 

[guero_gordo]

Why do people ask passive-aggressive questions, and assume things others never said?

Why do you attack me like this? ;-)

 

[Crystol Owens Brown]

Just a few observations and questions here:

1. Why do people assume their DD is a better player than the coach's DD?

2. Why do people assume that coaches who "play to win" are bad coaches?

3. Why do people assume that coaches who have their own DD sit on the bench are automatically "good coaches?"

4. Why do people assume that coaches who do not have a DD on the team are automatically better and "more fair" than coaches who do?

5. Why do people assume that any coach who plays just nine is devious and never really plays the best nine as he or she sees it?

For the team my daughter played on, the coaches daughter was the best player on the team. The team was also built around his daughter, made up of mostly her friends.
I kept the books for the team and knew the stats. Also, I knew who made the most errors but they never sat the bench. Why? Because the coach had faith in those kids ability. They were given chances and opportunities to get better. I have no problem with that...the problem is when some players are not given the chance to make errors and learn from those errors.

 

[Little Angels Softball]

For the team my daughter played on, the coaches daughter was the best player on the team. The team was also built around his daughter, made up of mostly her friends.
I kept the books for the team and knew the stats. Also, I knew who made the most errors but they never sat the bench. Why? Because the coach had faith in those kids ability. They were given chances and opportunities to get better. I have no problem with that...the problem is when some players are not given the chance to make errors and learn from those errors.

I have no issue with your grievances. You had me on your side right about wen you said this bozo plays pick-up players and has his own girls sit.

On my team, all the girls play and they all play on Sunday (maybe not every Sunday, but they will play on Sunday). I am of the belief that if you pick a girl, you need to play her so she can get better. Getting better is the sole reason to be on a travel team in the first place, IMHO, and girls simply cannot progress without playing.

I have no qualms about taking away PT for problems, though.

Don't show up to practice, you may not play (depending on reason).

Decide to go to a rec game instead of practice? You will not play.

Give less than 100% effort at any time? You may not play.

Give less than 100% effort on a few occasions and you will not play.

Sulk or pout because you don't like where/when you're playing? Think about it from the bench.

Sulk from the bench? Go sit with your parents.

Parent gets in my face or talks crap behind my back? Go find another team.....immediately. No second chances.

 

[#10]

I kept the books for the team and knew the stats. Also, I knew who made the most errors but they never sat the bench. Why? Because the coach had faith in those kids ability. They were given chances and opportunities to get better. I have no problem with that...the problem is when some players are not given the chance to make errors and learn from those errors.

This is the gist of what I was talking about in the post above. Kids should get the chance to make mistakes and learn from them; that's how they develop their game. At what point, if the same mistakes are repeatedly made by the same players, is it time to give another kid a chance?

 

[jacman]

"Daddy Ball" is not limited to just daddies.....if a coach gives paid lessons (batting, pitching, fielding, speed & agility, ect) there is a good chance the players who pay for lessons will be given similar "benefits".

This has also been our experience. DD averaged 1 inning per weekend in the circle last fall, while HC's two paying students split the rest. DD has since moved to a better team, with better coaching, playing better competition. She's 4-2, proving she was capable of pitching well enough. The frustration of not pitching last fall sharpened her desire.