Competetive vs Exposure Team??

[joemcq51]

Yesterday I spent some time with a well respected Gold level coach in the area. His comments to me really caught me by surprise. We came around to the subject of a players development. He claims that younger players need to be on teams that get the player proper exposure. Why would teams want to enter a weekend tournament that at the end of the weekend you get a plastic trophy? Players need to be playing in tournaments that get your DD in front of college scouts. He also suggests its better to play in fewer tournaments, as long as the teams you are competing with are the highest competition. The example he gave was if given the chance to play the independence tournaments in Colorado and PGF or ASA Gold Nats he would sacrafice 4 or 5 state level tournaments.

I always thought playing more games was the best way to advance. It seems that now, it is more important who and where you play, rather than how much you play. This particular coach believes that fewer games, but against the top teams nationally will get your daughter more ready for high level softball. I understand the desire to play the best teams to get better. I now find myself completely rethinking some things. So if my dd plays in a tournament with 10 teams. She may play 6 games in a weekend. If only one or two games are against better teams, it wasn't worth the time spent????? This is starting to get confusing.

 

[Comp]

Playing against good teams is really the only way for a team to improve. If you constantly play teams below your ability level, there is no reason to strive to improve. From my experience, if a team doesnt play good competitive games at least a couple of times a month it usually takes a game or 2 for them to all get their heads back in the action and play competitive ball.

From the coaches comments I cant tell if he is telling you just to showcase or not. My daughter played for a very short period of time on a gold team that decided they were going to showcase the players. Their main objective was to get the girls seen and winning was second. As a result, the girls played just like that also, winning didnt matter, it was all about putting on the show. The team won very few games and quickly became more of a joke than anything. Even though they had some very good players and were more than capable of being a competitive team, by being nothing more than an exposure team the girls eventually took the mindset that winning really wasnt that important, it was being seen by the college coaches that mattered. The only problem was, by never winning and being known as the joke of the gold teams they also never got any interest from college coaches.

Following is an article written by Mike Candrea last year for the ASA coaches publication regarding playing vs competing.

by Mike Candrea

Have we developed a system that has created an unintended consequence in player development? I can honestly say that kids are playing many more games over a 12 month period than ever before yet we find fewer competitors in today's culture. What do I mean by this statement? Pound for pound, you will find more kids that are more technically sound than ever before but we are confusing ability for talent. As Allen Fox, author of The Winners Mind suggest, "Most people mistake speed and skill for talent. Real talent starts with energy, drive, work ethic and the will to win. Without these attributes, a player can never be great."

In this country, we have focused so much on playing, that we have not taught our players to compete-to fight- to work hard or to have the will to win. We emphasize playing, technical ability and skills. Our youth players play a lot of softball, but few compete.

It is not always the fault of the players. Our "system" or our "softball culture" is dysfunctional. When a player is not playing, she simply changes teams. There is no thought about competing for a spot on the team, fighting for a spot, getting better to earn a spot - we simply change teams. The message to the players is that striving to get better is not important; it is simply how you play and how you look.

High School age players don't care much about the outcome of most games they play. They do care about "showing" - about playing to showcase their skills and abilities for college coaches. How many times have you heard a parent tell their daughter that you played well or you showed well despite losing the game?

Add to this the large number of meaningless games and we have a deadly combination. The emphasis slowly changes from the game to the individual. The emphasis has changed to playing and showing and competing is lost. By the time our players move to the next level, they have not learned how to compete.

In fact, research is very clear that constant praising of children's innate (softball skills or intellectual) ability can prevent young athletes/students from living up to their potential. On the other hand, studies show that teaching young people to focus on effort rather than ability helps make them high achievers and competitors in school, on the field and in life! As coaches, we must do our part to emphasize attitude and effort - two elements that we have control over each and every day and will largely influence our success in life.

 

[undergroundga]

Playing against good teams is really the only way for a team to improve. If you constantly play teams below your ability level, there is no reason to strive to improve. From my experience, if a team doesnt play good competitive games at least a couple of times a month it usually takes a game or 2 for them to all get their heads back in the action and play competitive ball.

From the coaches comments I cant tell if he is telling you just to showcase or not. My daughter played for a very short period of time on a gold team that decided they were going to showcase the players. Their main objective was to get the girls seen and winning was second. As a result, the girls played just like that also, winning didnt matter, it was all about putting on the show. The team won very few games and quickly became more of a joke than anything. Even though they had some very good players and were more than capable of being a competitive team, by being nothing more than an exposure team the girls eventually took the mindset that winning really wasnt that important, it was being seen by the college coaches that mattered. The only problem was, by never winning and being known as the joke of the gold teams they also never got any interest from college coaches.

Following is an article written by Mike Candrea last year for the ASA coaches publication regarding playing vs competing.

by Mike Candrea

Have we developed a system that has created an unintended consequence in player development? I can honestly say that kids are playing many more games over a 12 month period than ever before yet we find fewer competitors in today's culture. What do I mean by this statement? Pound for pound, you will find more kids that are more technically sound than ever before but we are confusing ability for talent. As Allen Fox, author of The Winners Mind suggest, "Most people mistake speed and skill for talent. Real talent starts with energy, drive, work ethic and the will to win. Without these attributes, a player can never be great."

In this country, we have focused so much on playing, that we have not taught our players to compete-to fight- to work hard or to have the will to win. We emphasize playing, technical ability and skills. Our youth players play a lot of softball, but few compete.

It is not always the fault of the players. Our "system" or our "softball culture" is dysfunctional. When a player is not playing, she simply changes teams. There is no thought about competing for a spot on the team, fighting for a spot, getting better to earn a spot - we simply change teams. The message to the players is that striving to get better is not important; it is simply how you play and how you look.

High School age players don't care much about the outcome of most games they play. They do care about "showing" - about playing to showcase their skills and abilities for college coaches. How many times have you heard a parent tell their daughter that you played well or you showed well despite losing the game?

Add to this the large number of meaningless games and we have a deadly combination. The emphasis slowly changes from the game to the individual. The emphasis has changed to playing and showing and competing is lost. By the time our players move to the next level, they have not learned how to compete.

In fact, research is very clear that constant praising of children's innate (softball skills or intellectual) ability can prevent young athletes/students from living up to their potential. On the other hand, studies show that teaching young people to focus on effort rather than ability helps make them high achievers and competitors in school, on the field and in life! As coaches, we must do our part to emphasize attitude and effort - two elements that we have control over each and every day and will largely influence our success in life.

Great post. We very rarely ever talk about winnin/loseing. I didn't say never, but rarely. instead we talk about attitude and effort. i would never tell dd that winning isn't important, but we are much happier with a good effort/attitude in a loseing game than a bad effort in a winning game. But a great effort in a winning game is the best, and what she strives for.

 

[MTR]

To me, it all depends on your priority. While in the past, many of us used to play sports for fun, competition and neighborhood/school/company bragging rights.

Coaches prepared you to compete on the field and improve you skills to make the team at the next level. You did not have coaches approaching parents with the, "play for me if you want your child to get a scholarship" line.

I believe college football is falling into the same type of categories. The D-IA (FBS) are basically for those who are trying to put themselves in the best position to be drafted by the pro teams. The D-IAA (FCS) is based upon competition and playing the game. They, like D-II & D-III settle their championship on the field through a playoff system. The FBS teams play toward a single, media-ladened game for money. But the key is getting "seen" on TV. Fortunately, the pro teams have caught on that there are quite a few talented players that are more worried about how often they get on the field to play the game than how often they are seen on TV with a high profile team. If you look close at the NFL player's schools of record, every year there are more and more players coming from somewhere other than the FBS. Are they drafted high? Not that many, but quite a few get invitations and end up on the roster. But like the NCAA advertises, many of their athletes are going pro in something other than their sport.

I don't think travel softball is that much different and there is no problem with that as long as the player knows the direction that needs to be taken and the path which leads there. The only problem I have are those who basically invade the competitive side of the path and wanting to make it their own showcase path.

 

[sluggers]

First, good players love to play softball. They have some natural ability, and good work ethics, but more important than anything else, they love the game. So, it is a little difficult to understand how a coach is going to recruit good players by saying, "The only two tournaments we are going to play is the Boulder tournament and the 18U ASA Gold tournament."

She may play 6 games in a weekend. If only one or two games are against better teams, it wasn't worth the time spent?????

If her team is run-ruling the other teams, then no, it wasn't time well spent. On the other hand, if you are talking about winning games 1-0, 4-3, 2-0, etc., then it was time well spent.

The question is whether the team had to scrap and claw during the game. If the team is so much better that they didn't have to work for the victory, then it wasn't a valuable game. On the other hand, if her team is so much worse that it didn't have a prayer of winning, then it wasn't worth the effort.

For athletes to improve, they have to be challenged in meaningful competition.

 

[joemcq51]

Sluggers- The coach wasn't saying to only play those two tournaments. From what I gathered, he would rather see girls who are playing 50-60 games a year, but against good teams and in the top tournaments. He basically feels that the teams that are playing 100 games a year and winning meaningless tournaments in October and April, really aren't preparing the girls for the next level. Seemed like he is all about getting the girls to college. I believe the comment was "If they don't have enough little trophies by the time they get to me, they are on the wrong team."

 

[sluggers]

Sounds like the guy is just trying to rationalize not playing 100 games per year.

Assuming a player is well coached, the more repetitions a player gets, the better the player becomes. More games = more repetitions = better players.

Playing in a lot of games allows a player to see strange things that you just can't get in practice. E.g., there is an art to determining an umpire's strike zone. The only way to get good at it is to have a real umpire behind the plate.

He basically feels that the teams that are playing 100 games a year and winning meaningless tournaments in October and April, really aren't preparing the girls for the next level.

What a load of horse manure...

There is nothing magical or mysterious about "the next level". If a person walks away from preconceptions about athletics and simply *watches* a bunch of games, she/he can understand what "the next level" of softball really is.

The "next level" in softball is having a basic skill set of running, throwing, catching and hitting and doing those basic skills better than everyone else. There are no complex blocking schemes, defenses or in-bounds plays to learn. It really is simply throwing the ball farther, hitting the ball farther, and running faster than the other girls.

Assuming that two players are well coached, do you believe one girl playing 100 games a year will field/hit better than another girl playing 60 games? The girl seeing more live pitching from different pitchers will hit better. The girl getting more ground balls will field better.

Why does California produce the best softball players in the world? The kids are playing 150 games a year. Softball isn't rocket science. There is no great "softball mystery" only revealed to Hal Skinner, Mike Candrea, and Bill Hillhouse.

 

[Ken Krause]

This has been an interesting turn in thinking over the last few years. When I was young (back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth) the point of playing was to win. When I started coach nearly 20 years ago, the point was to win. You would compete with the thought of winning.

Just recently, though, winning seems to be taking a back seat to exposure. More and more we're hearing that as long as you play the right tournaments and get seen by the right coaches, winning and losing are secondary. It's no wonder kids are having a tougher time learning to compete.

 

[Comp]

Cant find it at the moment but Candrea climbed all over his girls after they were eliminated from the WCWS this year. Said that softball had become more of a social club than a competition. A lot of things he said recently go back to many of the points he made in the article I posted earlier. Getting exposure is great, but any time you take the field it should be with the intent to win the game, not show off for any coaches that may be watching. If you play to win, there is no need to showcase. Not to mention, the more games you win, the longer you are in any tournament you may play, and the more chances you have to get seen by prospective coaches.

 

[MTR]

Getting exposure is great, but any time you take the field it should be with the intent to win the game, not show off for any coaches that may be watching.

It is unbelievable how true this is. I work some games during the summer that are basically a pick-up team of young ladies which play college ball up and down the East coast. They play a double header each week against other similar teams or a Gold team. The ball is the best ball you can see. No pressure, no recruiters, nobody to impress or disappoint. They are playing for fun and to win.