Why do coaches assume that parents are inept at evaluating talent?
I find it interesting that two coaches are so sensitive to that dreaded topic "daddyball." While there are undoubtedly coaches' daughters who are genuine studs, there are far more who are beneficiaries of nepotism, especially at younger age groups.
DD and I spent the last four months looking for a 14U 'A' travel team, and we finally found a good fit with a team that doesn't have a dad managing. We practiced and played friendlies with about a dozen teams and got offers to join from all except one.
Some of these teams had coaches' kids who were studs, albeit at one position. Just because Sally is the ace pitcher, deservedly so, it doesn't mean she should start at shortstop when she's not in the circle. I saw this with two different teams in a "name brand" organization, and it was obvious to parents that were trying to coax me into joining.
What's more prevalent in my neck of the woods is assistant coaches' kids getting the nod over far more talented players. How many errors must a kid make before another kid, who consistently outplays the coach's kid in practice, gets an opportunity to show what she can contribute in a game?
What I've learned is that one has to do their research before committing, because for many teams, loyalty is a one-way street. Go out to a friendly/tourney and watch a prospective team in action. Check Gamechanger (or whatever scorekeeping apps are used) and look at the box scores. Is the team consistently committing 4-5 errors a game week in and week out? Does the team constantly advertise for new players? If so, that team has "Daddyball" written all over it.
I don't mean to paint with such a broad brush, as there are undoubtedly many coaches who don't run their teams like this. However, it happens, and my guess is that it occurs far more often than coaches realize. If you're coaching, you're not going through the grind of the tryout process. Everybody's mindset is a result of their experiences.
I am actually not sensitive to it, at all. I have coached class A ball at a national level for many, many years with only a few of those having a DD on the team. My stripes were earned without it so I am not bothered by the term.
It is just that over the years I have had some of my stiffest competition from teams coached by a parent. And almost always, it has been because said parent had a DD on the team who was a complete superstar and made others on her team better.
I've seen some really good parent coaches and some really bad ones. I've seen some really good professional coaches and some really bad ones.
For me, the term "daddy ball" usually means that a parent started a new team (or joined an organization with a need for coaching) so their DD could be a #1 pitcher. These teams are started because a girl cannot quite crack a rotation on a top team or perhaps she's a #3 and the parents want more circle time. They also are looking for the "marquis effect" of DD being labeled as "a #1 pitcher on an "A" ball team." They attract like-minded folks and usually end up being mediocre at best, sometimes downright embarrassing.
The thing that runs common with the "daddy ball" complaint is that it almost always comes from families with girls who are #10 or greater on the depth chart or who really want their DD to play a certain position that she may not be getting a lot of time at. These exact same complaints turn from "daddy ball" to "playing favorites" when the coach doesn't happen to have a DD on the team.
I only see two types when I evaluate coaches: Those with well-coached teams and those with not-so-well-coached teams.
In 15 years of top-level A ball, after taking out the daddy ball scenario outlined above, I have never been able to draw any correlation between whether either of those are more or less apt to be ran by parent coaches or pro coaches.
Last edited: