Who ever said only nine players can only play that's why you have dh,s designated players,flex players etc. We have 12 kids on the team and all of them get used in some way or another
Loyalty...it is a two way street
- Thread starter Crystal Brown
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Another thing we have done is to try n coach to have the majority of our players to be utility players so we can move them around freely so depending on stats for ex. One week you might play lf next week rf or ss vs 2nd we have 2 people keeping stats and try to play what the stats are telling us. In another ex we have a girl that really struggles getting herself on base but is awesome at base running while one of our pitchers is good at getting on base but is slow n not good at running the bases well if player A is sitting we bring her in to run for the pitcher.
Last edited:
I think it was just the blanket statement - ''play to win, period'' - that he took issue with. It's almost always a balance of winning and player development, and it's more heavily one or the other depending on age and other things. If it's all about winning, you're usually going to have some players with severely limited playing time that you'd be happy to shed at the end of the year, if not sooner. If it's more about player development, then the quality of your bottom 3 players becomes very important and they play significantly, even if it costs you a game or two. In most cases, I prefer the latter.
Its definitely a balancing act trying to maximize on the strengths of each player cause ea one has both weaknesses n strengths all the while trying to make the team as a whole the strongest you can plus us coaches have our own strengths n weaknesses.
Interesting... I really haven't heard anyone say, but I have seen, where the coaches DD IS the better player. I have seen this more than the "DaddyBall" everyone talks about.
As far as the OP, it isn't right to have a kid on the team sit whole tournaments. The coaches chose her at tryouts, and she is part of the team. I had this happen to me last year in fact. I needed a SS, put out a cattle call for players. It was winter, and we were indoors. 1 girl showed up and we offered her a spot. When we got on the dirt, it was pretty obvious she wasn't up to the same level we were playing. She didn't get much infield time, but she played at least a couple of innings each game in the OF. Did it hurt us? Yes sometimes, but in talking to my assistant I said "you know we are the ones that offered her a spot, I'm not going to just sit her". Lesson for me, even if you are needing a player.... pick the right one
As far as the OP, it isn't right to have a kid on the team sit whole tournaments. The coaches chose her at tryouts, and she is part of the team. I had this happen to me last year in fact. I needed a SS, put out a cattle call for players. It was winter, and we were indoors. 1 girl showed up and we offered her a spot. When we got on the dirt, it was pretty obvious she wasn't up to the same level we were playing. She didn't get much infield time, but she played at least a couple of innings each game in the OF. Did it hurt us? Yes sometimes, but in talking to my assistant I said "you know we are the ones that offered her a spot, I'm not going to just sit her". Lesson for me, even if you are needing a player.... pick the right one
OK, you can sometimes keep 10 players happy and serve the team's interest doing the Flex / DP thing; I've done that myself. Even then, the Flex still really wants to bat, and the DP really wants to play defense. You might be some world famous softball coach who can develop players without actually giving them meaningful playing time, but more likely you're dad coach learning the game like the rest of us. If your #11 & 12 only see spot play as a runner, PH, or substitute fielder in garbage time, and you're only focused on putting the best players on the field so you can win (period), you're not going to keep those bench players for long. The kids are out there to play, and if they don't, they'll eventually find another team that will use them more, or they will quit entirely.
Last edited:
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?
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?
DD #1 was on some teams where the coaches DD really was the best player on the team.
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.
