- Nov 29, 2009
- 2,975
- 83
Good luck.
You need to have someone there with buckets of cold water to throw on him when he opens his mouth. Let him take the Ice Bucket Challenge a few times. hehehehe
Dealing with a delusional parent who thinks he is a coach
- Thread starter Benny13082
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Good luck.
You need to have someone there with buckets of cold water to throw on him when he opens his mouth. Let him take the Ice Bucket Challenge a few times. hehehehe
We are sort of off in the weeds here from the OP, but I do have to question the thought that even at 18 Showcase ball, you can make IFers OFers easily. Here's my reasoning. I agree that colleges recruit the best athletes, and let's face it, more often than not those are your SS. As a result, college squads often full of ex=shortstops. Since there's only 1 SS playing that means that all the rest of the SS are playing all over the field.
Bottom line, this presumably means there are a lot of former TB SSs playing OF in college. Certainly, of the 40 or 50 D1 games I watch on TV and in person, the outfield play is nowhere near the level of IF. Now there are some good OFers out there who play there position well, but I've seen some real excursions in the OF even at the top levels that are painful to watch. Badly misplayed balls, charging in on balls that wind up over the head, etc... I'd suggest that at the upper reaches of D1, it's not like the reps and coaching aren't there - some kids just aren't cut out to play some positions. When a college team with 20 girls can't find three to play the OF at a high level, I gotta think that being an athlete sometimes might just not be enough.
Greenmonsters
Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
The dilemma is that the best hitters aren't always your best fielders. And many coaches will choose to err on the side of offense and hope that the defensive price isn't too great.
I realize that, and that's sort of my point. Even though they are "athletes", they can't just play anywhere on the field at a high level. You're reduced to trying to hide them.
To the OP, I feel your pain, but sounds like you are headed in the right direction.
Unfortunately, you may have missed the part where I said as long as the athletes can hit off of the better or best pitchers, they can get recruited and more often than not, play for many teams. While I completely understand where you are coming from, you must also understand where I am as well. On my showcase team, I am not reduced to just fielding hitters. I am fielding athletes because I know how to turn them into both hitters and fielders. I'm not saying that most college coaches aren't able to, can't or won't, but I AM saying that thanks to this site, years of coaching experience and learning about the best techniques, mechanics and instruction available today (through continuous study) as well as having the willingness to continue to learn about the advances in all of the aforementioned items, I have had no issues so far.
Is every girl equal in foot speed, fielding experience, hitting ability, position training, etc. etc.? Of course not. I've seen many catchers at the P5 level that I wouldn't have as my starting catcher on my showcase team. The only reason that they're a starting catcher at that level is because they're a transitioned athlete that can hit well, has a cannon for an arm and top hitting catchers are in extremely short supply. However, from what I've seen, they cost their pitchers anywhere from 9-15 called strikes a game (and that's being generously low a majority of the time). That's an inning plus for their pitchers. Yet, the coaches prefer to have a stick behind the plate and are wiling to give up some called strikes in exchange for a hitter even though a recent MLB study has shown that a great receiving/defensive catcher only has to bat around the .170 mark in order to justify putting them on the field. I understand that in a way, I'm helping to make your case, but, the catching position is a skilled position and thus, we've come full circle to pitchers and catchers.
The other 7 may be able to pull the position off or not. The only reason they're on the field at all is because they can hit and not cost the team, in the HC's eyes, too much on defense versus a truly better defensive player that can't quite hit as well as the others. Many feel offense will win the game a majority of the time versus defense. So if you felt that way and truly believed it, what would you choose? A better defensive player that will make 98% of the plays and hits .300 or an offensive player that hits .380, makes 90% of the defensive plays and holds the opposing team to singles?
Last edited:
If you really want to help the girl help her find the best travel team on which she can contribute and let her go. Why hold her back?
I like coaches in picture.
What a great person, what an idiot.
What a great person, what an idiot.
