Newbe revelation

[obbay]

BTW, we play nine on the field (obviously).

We play TEN- which also stinks but gives you a means to get everyone in. At this level, LL has a minimum requirement of 1 at bat and 3 defensive innings (2 innings at lower levels). it gets very difficult to get 17 players into a game for 3 innings that may only last 6 innings (before called due to darkness), especially if you want to keep your pitcher and catcher playing. if they all were at the same level it wouldn't be as big of a deal but I had 15 y.o.s on my team last year who after playing 8 years of LL, still couldn't swing a bat, didn't realize you could be tagged out if you weren't standing on the base, could miss a ball that was thrown directly to them, didn't know how to slide (or wouldn't), etc. at tryouts I saw some girls that made me wonder why they were there- looked like it was their first time fielding a ball. (I felt bad for thinking it, but couldnt help it)

 

[CJ D]

I had 15 y.o.s on my team last year who after playing 8 years of LL, still couldn't swing a bat, didn't realize you could be tagged out if you weren't standing on the base, could miss a ball that was thrown directly to them, didn't know how to slide (or wouldn't), etc. at tryouts I saw some girls that made me wonder why they were there- looked like it was their first time fielding a ball. (I felt bad for thinking it, but couldnt help it)

I am in the minority on this no doubt, and will likely get flamed for it, but your quote here is EXACTLY why rec leagues should do a much better job of getting qualified coaches, and be worried less about taking a group of girls that a good coach has trained to be good ball players and spreading them around. There may be more to the OPs story, but speaking personally, I think the coaches should be able to continue on with the girls they have helped develop.

 

[Coach Hig]

Ironically, a fellow coach and I had a conversation last night with one of the "execs" of our league about this subject matter. It was explained (or attempted to be ...) that they (the League), "... has to do what LL says they have to do by the rules." Further explanation of what 'that' is that LL tells them was this: "If you come to us (execs - as I have dubbed the local league management) and ask to have an expansion team, and there are enough girls, we have to honor the request and give it to you." The quote may not be verbatim, but the essence of it is as stated. Further explaining, that the coach of "that" team, which remember, was the coach of the [same] successful team of girls that was moving up that could (and would, AND DID) become the expansion team, came to us and said, "If there is going to be an expansion team, I'll take it." Absolutely laughable! Additionally, it was explained that IF I (as an example) had asked the same last or this season, it would have been granted. BS.

Lets think a minute: This individual (the coach) that made this statement/request is: On the board, makes the game schedule, previously owned (like a season or two ago) a screen printing business with whom you (the League) consistently did business with, was associated last season (as HC) with the very team that he ironically was granted seven first picks because he just, by happenstance, mentioned IF there is an expansion team, I'll take it, etc., etc., etc.,. Hence the, "BS" above.

I politely and respectfully replied that there was no way in the world he would ever sell that explanation to the parents of the girls on "those two teams" (the two that got completely shafted - which happened to be playing each other while this conversation was going on) and if that is how things played out, it was a very bad decision on the Leagues part both morally and ethically and the "request" should have been declined so that experienced and talented young girls moving up would be placed in the draft, chosen like everybody else thereby helping two weaker, last season teams to possibly become more competitive for this season. Well, that statement was meet with a measure of anger and defensiveness; the statement being made, "If that's how you feel about it, you should be coaching that team." - I found this statement very revealing. My reply was simply that it was not about "me." Unbelievable.

Take away for me - Per the subject line: Newbie Revelation. I guess I hope better of people and the human race and am simply and utterly disappointed and disgusted with the display here. I retain that there is no justification for our leagues actions and last nights attempted explanation feel well below flat. Being a respectful individual, I expressed to the exec my appreciation for the conversation. Did it change anything? Will it affect change? Sadly, the answer to both is NO. And with that, I'll consider rant over. Thank you to all of you that commented.

 

[PA SB Dad]

It's stuff like this that drives kids away from the rec leagues - either to travel ball or away from softball altogether.

 

[obbay]

Pretzel logic. never argue with an idiot because they'll pull you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Your league doesn't sound much different than mine. one thing that has been helpful for me in the past was calling the regional LL HQ and speaking with the softball people there.

I have a draft tonight and am not looking forward to it. two other teams have players who have sisters in the draft so they are supposed to notify the league and they will be locked for the first 3 rounds. because these girls are not that good, the coaches are not locking them so they can get better picks. I am tempted to draft those sisters under the assumption that they will need to trade a player for them so they don't have to explain to the parents why their daughters are playing on different teams. I don't wanna do that. its always something....

 

[canyonjoe]

I am in the minority on this no doubt, and will likely get flamed for it, but your quote here is EXACTLY why rec leagues should do a much better job of getting qualified coaches, and be worried less about taking a group of girls that a good coach has trained to be good ball players and spreading them around. There may be more to the OPs story, but speaking personally, I think the coaches should be able to continue on with the girls they have helped develop.

I'm in no way looking to "flame" you, but just wondering if you are a good coach, wouldn't it be more advantageous if rather than coach the same 11 girls every year you had different ones so that over 4 or 5 years you might affect the careers of 30 or so kids? How many kids would still be playing if they had you for 1 year to teach them how to play.

While I understand what you are saying, I look at the 15 year old mentioned and would bet that she always was on the extra team every year and never learned anything.

I do agree with you on developing better coaches, but it's hard for the new coaches to come in with a team of 2 good players and 10 new players and have 2 weeks of practice and have to play teams that are loaded with good players. Once in awhile one will succeed but many just give up resulting in that pool of players suffering the same fate year after year.

 

[marriard]

Ironically, a fellow coach and I had a conversation last night with one of the "execs" of our league about this subject matter. It was explained (or attempted to be ...) that they (the League), "... has to do what LL says they have to do by the rules." Further explanation of what 'that' is that LL tells them was this: "If you come to us (execs - as I have dubbed the local league management) and ask to have an expansion team, and there are enough girls, we have to honor the request and give it to you." The quote may not be verbatim, but the essence of it is as stated. Further explaining, that the coach of "that" team, which remember, was the coach of the [same] successful team of girls that was moving up that could (and would, AND DID) become the expansion team, came to us and said, "If there is going to be an expansion team, I'll take it." Absolutely laughable! Additionally, it was explained that IF I (as an example) had asked the same last or this season, it would have been granted. BS.

Absolute garbage. Get a hold of the Little League rules - there are VERY specific rules on how they have to put teams together and I can tell you right now, this is not a legal way to put teams together.

 

[obbay]

While I understand what you are saying, I look at the 15 year old mentioned and would bet that she always was on the extra team every year and never learned anything.

FWIW- the players I was referring to were on teams that performed fine, but the coaches didn't have the time to teach them the game so they were always swept under the rug. As you say, they didn't learn anything in the process. I tried to teach those kids last year when I took over the team but there wasn't enough time and there wasn't enough interest on their part. The last practice we tried to hold only had one player show up - and this was very early in the season.

So I guess my point is that you can lead the horse to water but you can't make them want to drink.
I believe it needs to start young, maybe smaller teams (so no kid has a chance to get comfortable feeling like a bench warmer) with talent equitably distributed, learning the fundamentals so as they get older there isn't such a disparity.

 

[obbay]

FWIW- Draft last night was postponed to Sunday because just when we were about to start, one of the B.O.D's saw in the operating manual that teams are not allowed to have more than 15 players (we were up to 17), so we are trying to add a 5th team.

the 2015 Little League rulebook, Regulation III, par. (a) says:
"No team may have more than 15 players (18 for big league) nor less than 12."

That helps me, don't know if it helps you.

 

[nicelag]

"In our league, we eliminated all but one lock: your own kid/step-kid/grandkid/niece/god-daughter, whatever she is to you. You want someone to be your AC? You have to draft his/her kid. We do other things as part of the draft to ensure equitable teams, but eliminating the multiple "locks" was a big factor. So far it's working for us this season, with all intra-league games being decided by 1 or 2 runs."

Bravo, our league does the same thing. Only way to eliminate the BS and be fair.

"I am in the minority on this no doubt, and will likely get flamed for it, but your quote here is EXACTLY why rec leagues should do a much better job of getting qualified coaches, and be worried less about taking a group of girls that a good coach has trained to be good ball players and spreading them around. There may be more to the OPs story, but speaking personally, I think the coaches should be able to continue on with the girls they have helped develop."

First of all I have been in leagues that Lock players and ones that don't, and we all know that rec leagues are generally not going to have an abundance of quality coaches. They will have quality people but not necessarily coaches. Now, what you are saying is that all of the girls in the league do not deserve the right to play for the "good" coach over time, and only the girls who are currently on that team should benefit? So, those girls unfortunate enough to be on bad teams should have to stay there, learn nothing and be miserable because it's somehow their fault they are on that team right?

Every year I am fortunate enough (I guess) to have my players drafter up in the draft by other coaches, which inevitably leaves me with new bodies to coach. Is it frustrating that the bad coaches get other peoples good players every year? Of course, but we have to suck it up and afford others the opportunity to learn. Sad part is those bad coaches that get your good players every year always find a way to screw them up. That's the travesty.