When do you stop coaching and start managing?

I think that those that say you are "always a teacher" or "always coaching" missed the point of the original questions. I think it is safe to say that just about all of us that volunteer to coach anywhere from t-ball on up, do it to teach a combination of softball skills and life skills. We all want to make the kids we coach constantly better, and through the course of the season(s) the experience should be an ongoing coaching/learning process. So in that sense, I agree that we are "always" coaching & teaching. Within that overall context however, there are times when our attention shifts from developing skills and instructing in how to play in situations, to actually competing in games and putting our kids in a position to succeed.

I read the original question to ask when that transition of focus happens (specifically at the 16U level). Although it is never 100%, my take is that it happens when you start preparing for and playing competitive games (at a tournament, in a HS season, etc). At that point, the coach/manager is thinking about batting orders, defensive line-ups, etc. And once the game begins, he/she is focusing on the specific game situation and game tactics, and how to get the team in a postion to win the game (can we steal on the opposing catcher? bunt/steal? what 1st/3rd defense should we play, etc.). You are really relying on all the skills and instructions that were taught and developed in practice. Quite honestly, if Suzie is dropping her back shoulder when she bats, chances are you are not going to spend a lot of game time trying to correct it...that is for batting practice, or if the kids mess up on a rundown, you are probably not going to stop during the game and review the rundown.

Having said that, there will certainly be opportunities during a game to remind players of things that they worked on in practice, to apply them during the game. And definitely between games is a great teaching opportunity to review the prior game, and reinforce lessons for the next game.

Overall, coaches (especially head coaches) have two hats: a coaching/teaching hat, and a game manager hat. I would say that during practices & scrimmages, you are 99% coach/teacher, and on game day you switch hats and become 90% manager and still keep 10% of your focus on coaching/teaching.

MTR said:

You've left the path of my question, so let me narrow the scope.

At the higher level, I don't think it is as much about new knowledge as it is observation, interpretation and application of proper mechanics and correction of unconscious changes. An exampe of that was a point in tine, Don Mattingly was in a helluva slump with the Yankees. No one could figure out what the problem was......until his father called. He had seen the Yankees on TV and called his son to ask why he changed his batting stance. Apparently his father noticed that he did not see the same portion of his number from the center field camera as in the past.
)

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to leave the path, but your above quote was the intention of my post. Coaching and managing are two different entities. Both have their time and place, and both work together to accomplish the same goal.

The proper purpose of the GM is just like you stated above, they can 'see' things that the narrow view from the dugout can not. Most coaches during a game are 'in the moment'. The GM role should be in the 'long run'. He is usually outside the dugout and can move about to see angles the coaches can't. Yes the majority of coaching happens at practice, the GM makes sure that the coaching is working, and transfered to game situations.

As far as the repeating and the player turns him off, that's another time a good GM steps up. He should be able to present the same advice as the coach but through a different approach with the intended outcome. That's where the PR part of the job occurs. The GM should be well respected by the players and parents, if not he is NO GOOD for the team.

Long story short, I don't think a coach can manage and coach effectively. It's just too much and the plan 'B' option of having a good GM is a nice addition to any given situation.

If you are a good coach then by all means keep coaching. But having a good GM can be priceless!!

ctfastpitch said:

I read the original question to ask when that transition of focus happens (specifically at the 16U level). Although it is never 100%, my take is that it happens when you start preparing for and playing competitive games (at a tournament, in a HS season, etc). At that point, the coach/manager is thinking about batting orders, defensive line-ups, etc. And once the game begins, he/she is focusing on the specific game situation and game tactics, and how to get the team in a postion to win the game (can we steal on the opposing catcher? bunt/steal? what 1st/3rd defense should we play, etc.). You are really relying on all the skills and instructions that were taught and developed in practice. Quite honestly, if Suzie is dropping her back shoulder when she bats, chances are you are not going to spend a lot of game time trying to correct it...that is for batting practice, or if the kids mess up on a rundown, you are probably not going to stop during the game and review the rundown.

Having said that, there will certainly be opportunities during a game to remind players of things that they worked on in practice, to apply them during the game. And definitely between games is a great teaching opportunity to review the prior game, and reinforce lessons for the next game.

Click to expand...

Yeppers, that is pretty much it. Maybe I should have quantified the question by asking when do you stop coaching players and start managing the team? During a game the decision shouldn't be so much "teach Suzie what to do during her next at bat", but rather "can Suzie make an immediate adjustment or do I bat Candy instead?"

I have seen coaches who want to come out to the circle at the top of every half inning and give the pitcher a mini-clinic. When the umpire hurries him/her along, the umpire is now the evil person taking the game away from the kids, yada, yada, yada.

To me, it is and always has been practice is for learning, developing and practicing skills while games are putting what one has learned to use in a competitive atmosphere. If a coach must rely on players to still be learning the standard mechanics and situational positioning during a game, that team either needs more practice time or a new coach. Of course, this is assuming the coach feels the team is up to that competitive level.

Not every team can be that good and need time to learn. this is why I am not a fan of "nationals" for the 10U level or below, but that is just me.