Coach chooses to bat 9

[Bullseye]

You as a parent approach the coach after first bracket game (won) and question the coaching decision to bat 9 with DP/FLEX. Your daughter was the FLEX. How would you like/appreciate/expect the coach to respond?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Parents are not the coach.
If a parent thinks they can do a better job. Stop parenting and coach.

 

[Strike2]

We are currently playing in a tournament using USA national rules. It started out as the USA National 18u tournament when COVID changed everything (the original Nationals were not supposed to be held in our backyard). It then changed names to USA Eastern Nationals and finally when they didn't get many teams signed up it dropped back to just being called the 18u Eastern Championship. They kept all the national rules in place though for some reason. Bat check, girl check ins, roster rules etc. Part of those rules are you can only bat 9 in bracket play.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Batting 9 is standard in Tournament USA bracket play.

 

[softball dad 6]

All USA sanctioned tournaments we have played in the last 2 years except those with national berths or nationals have allowed the use of up to 2 EPs even in bracket play.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[PDM]

Agreed, but that's not their only job. Any player that plays sports learns life lessons along the way and it is the coach's job to put it in context so the players understand it. In this case, it's something along the lines of 'If you don't like something, do something about it.'



Disagree. The problem with this statement is, in a general sense, if a team doesn't win, the coach doesn't have a team to compete with the following year. Even with the coach telling every single parent on the team, 'Hey, we're a developing team and honestly, we hope to go .500 on the season. That's our goal. When the season ends, we hope to retain a core group of girls to build a successful future team around.' it won't matter. The strongest player's parents will move on to a team that's had several years together and went 45-7 as an example. Therefore, the coach absolutely needs to be concerned with winning in order to retain a core group of the strongest players. Otherwise, they are left with the weaker players, the only other players that are interested in next year's team are weaker players and the following year they go 0-68. Now nobody wants to be there and the team disbands.

The problem with this statement in a more specific sense as it pertains to the OP is that they are playing in Nationals. At this level of competition, winning is everything for several reasons. One of them is that the coach can replace the few players that choose to leave (there's always a couple that think the grass is greener somewhere else) with better players. Part of attracting higher level, quality players for next year's team is by doing well at a huge tournament such as this.

Of course, these are viewpoints for an "A" or "Elite" level team so there's another reason I disagree with this statement. I'm not advocating playing only 9, all day-every day, I'm just saying that at these levels of play, the best 9 start and get more playing time than the others. The others should also play in games, just that they shouldn't get as many innings as the better players.

Your entire viewpoint of everyone should get equal playing time is more aligned with a low level "B" or "C" travel team. If we were talking about that type of team, I would absolutely, 100% agree with your viewpoint.

You seem to think that developing players and having a winning team are mutually exclusive. It's quite the opposite. If you are developing players, you WILL have a winning team. Every player is called upon to produce in the clutch at some point. If you are just making out a lineup card with your best players rather than developing all players, then those players who did not receive the instruction and experience that they required will fail in those situations and the team will lose. You don't want a coach, you want a good recruiter who can fill out a lineup card. There's a big difference between the two. And I couldn't care less about the "retain the best players" concept, which is really "recruit good players and then give them special treatment". I prefer the "develop players to be their best" concept, which builds better players and also team loyalty. Just making up a team of hired guns is about ego, not about building a program.

 

[ang2bmd]

Bottom line in this thread is that there is a kind of softball for everyone. Coaches should be up front about how they plan to play. Some teams value winning and there is NOTHING wrong with that as long as everyone is on board. I'm so sick of people acting like teaching our kids to compete and win is a bad thing. Yes teach sportsmanship and not to win at all costs but the reality is that some day some one is going to be better than you and you can either choose to respond and work hard or quit and another sad reality is that sometimes no matter how hard you work that other person is still better than you. It's a fact of life.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[softball dad 6]

DD's coach last year felt that players were in a rut. Showcase type team with lots of good players all with the stated goal of playing in college. Wide range in ages from rising college freshman to rising hs freshman. All 3 seniors already committed. The team had gone a tournament and a half under achieving. He announces the lineup on Saturday morning of a 3 day tournament and only 9 girls are batting instead of everyone. Up till that point everyone had batted unless the rules didn't allow. There was some surprise and grumbling but the message was clear. Being in the lineup was not a given. Team success for the rest of that tournament and the rest of the summer went up and other than 1 bad day met talent expectations. It could have just been luck but I give the coach credit for lighting a fire under the girls. The next tournament he went back to batting everyone when possible.

 

[_MIA_]

You seem to think that developing players and having a winning team are mutually exclusive. It's quite the opposite. If you are developing players, you WILL have a winning team.

Hmm I would say this is only partly true. Most coaches don't develop pitchers (that is done through private instruction and work at home) and if you don't have at least one good pitcher you are not going to win much. If a team has improved from the start of the season till the end then the coaching staff has done their job. If you are not winning in that scenario more than likely you need to recruit a stud pitcher

 

[Momo'sDad]

Hmm I would say this is only partly true. Most coaches don't develop pitchers (that is done through private instruction and work at home)

You are not looking for an argument, but respectfully, I must disagree. While I recognize that you are talking about skill development, there is no way to replicate game pressure other than being in a game. The mental part of player development is critical. A coach making the choice to roll with that stud may seem risky in the moment when there's a fresh arm ready, but what a boost if she's able to get the ground ball she was seeking and her defense picks her up to end the game.

 

[_MIA_]

You are not looking for an argument, but respectfully, I must disagree. While I recognize that you are talking about skill development, there is no way to replicate game pressure other than being in a game. The mental part of player development is critical. A coach making the choice to roll with that stud may seem risky in the moment when there's a fresh arm ready, but what a boost if she's able to get the ground ball she was seeking and her defense picks her up to end the game.

Yes I was talking about physical skills. I would agree that the mental part is important and can be developed by a coach.

 

[MNDad]

Some people just aren’t meant for travel ball. It’s Nationals and the coach is trying to win. As a parent I’d expect nothing less. You can disagree with the strategy, but the Dad was just upset over playing time. Which is doubly ridiculous because she still played as the flex.