- Aug 6, 2013
- 303
- 0
We played a tournament a couple weeks ago that was 90 minutes finish the inning - that was great - most games were 6 innings.
Good point, I'll agree with you here. But that's not as common in Travel Ball as it is in Little League.
I'll disagree here.
Yes, of course he wants to win. Travel Programs that don't win, continually lose, will lose players and not survive. When players look for a new travel team, one of the items they look at is success. Winning is important to the players, parents and organization.
Here's a scenario to ponder. Your team hasn't won a tourney all year. Finally you make it to the Championship. You are position to win and time is running out. You fail to manage the clock "a little" and you lose. If you used some common stalling tactics (take a pitch, etc.) you would have won. After the game you are asked by the President of your organization or a couple parents why you didn't "blank", "blank", "blank" at the end? Or why did you "blank", "blank", "blank" at the end; all you had to do was "blank" and the clock would have run out. What's your rationalization to them?
If this happened frequently, then I'd have to weigh it, but IMO, there isn't that much at stake over the long haul. If you play 75 games a year, how many of them will present the opportunity to stall? Let's say you believe in stalling. So you stall a little in 10 of them. In probably half of those, the time would've run out anyway. You were just making sure. Of the other 5, you probably win anyway. In 4 years of coaching travel ball, I can remember only 1 game that we lost because I declined to stall. There might've been 3-4 others that were extended another inning. I just don't see losing a team or the decision not to play the clock.
As for parents and organization chiefs, it's probably a good idea to explain your coaching philosophy up front. Then you don't have to explain later. If they take issue beforehand, then I either need to persuade, compromise or step down.
btw, I don't take issue with taking more pitches to slow the game. That doesn't prevent the other team from getting you out. That's not same as timeouts & pitching changes for the sole purpose of stalling.
We are a showcase team but even in competitive tournaments we do the same thing. After the first inning we go with one warmup pitch, throw down, and give me a batter. We also will sometimes utilize a hurry up defense. Only one warm up pitch. No pitch calling as the pitcher throws nothing but drop/fastballs trying for a ground ball. We often get half innings under 5 minutes and put them right back out in the sun.
Here's a scenario to ponder. Your team hasn't won a tourney all year. Finally you make it to the Championship. You are position to win and time is running out. You fail to manage the clock "a little" and you lose. If you used some common stalling tactics (take a pitch, etc.) you would have won. After the game you are asked by the President of your organization or a couple parents why you didn't "blank", "blank", "blank" at the end? Or why did you "blank", "blank", "blank" at the end; all you had to do was "blank" and the clock would have run out. What's your rationalization to them?
This is great in theory and it has been tried down here. The unintended result is that the gamesmanship just occurs a bit earlier. Instead of extending it to 1 extra inning now you are playing for 2 making it more advantageous if you are down.