We are playing 12A with 11 this year. For fall, indoor, and tournaments up to memorial day, everyone bats. We generally do not rotate defense during the course of a game unless it is needed based on extensive bad play (if it is effort related), injury or a pitching change causes it. If we have 3 pool games, everyone will get 2 defensive games, if 4 then they will at least get 3. Once Memorial day hits, we will keep this type of rotation during pool play. During bracket play after Memorial Day, we will play our best 9 defensively and best 9 offensively. For us, this will probably involve a DP/Flex. This may leave one girl out. Probably not for 2 games in a row, but it could. These rules were clearly explained and written when team offers were made. Our thought process is that girls have plenty of opportunity to learn/play and show they belong on the field for fall, winter and several months of spring. Even if they are in the lower 1-2, they will have a chance during pool play to show they are playing well and deserve to start in bracket play. Works fine now.... We will see once memorial day hits.
Playing time at 12A
- Thread starter let it be fun
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Sounds like your team is running fine, so I have no objections.
But, philosophically speaking, why do you do it this way?
What are you accomplishing that you might not accomplish if everyone batted every game (assuming they are doing everything that is asked of them effort- and attitude-wise)?
There is no reason everyone shouldn't get to play in pool play. If a player is on the team, there is a reason they are there, sometimes that reason is to develop them for the future, you needed someone in the event of an injury, etc. None of those purposes are served by not playing someone at all in pool play at least in a run of the mill tournament. If it is a championship or post-season type tournament the rotation might get tighter. But if the player is not good enough they need to not be on the team, if they are good enough to be on the team and are working hard with a good attitude, then everyone is served best by getting them playing time. You might need them later and want them to have experience to step in and help their team and if your team has mixed ages... like 05 and 06 in 10U, then getting that 06 player time will help develop them for next year.
With a big caveat, it is good for players to EARN playing time, so having an egalitarian everyone plays equal time will actually hurt both team and player development. My daughter never worked so hard as when she got on a travel team and the coach thought she was not very good. She got so much better proving that she was better than he thought and she felt so good when he realized it (felt pretty good to parents too). She always had the talent, but sitting gave her the push to not only be just as good as everyone else, but to be better and show it. I saw it in others as well. They have to have a chance though, if they never see the field at all you will never see it. I've also seen very good players very frustrated in rec ball because the girl who stands around and never gives any effort gets the same time as the hardest working most talented athlete. The best player on the team can learn to sit the bench and cheer on teammates that are giving the effort if you balance it right and reward effort, but too much everyone plays results in resentment in the better players and destroys motivation to get better in the others.
I suppose that is a long non-answer, but its a nuanced problem that requires a fine balance and a good coach.
With a big caveat, it is good for players to EARN playing time, so having an egalitarian everyone plays equal time will actually hurt both team and player development. My daughter never worked so hard as when she got on a travel team and the coach thought she was not very good. She got so much better proving that she was better than he thought and she felt so good when he realized it (felt pretty good to parents too). She always had the talent, but sitting gave her the push to not only be just as good as everyone else, but to be better and show it. I saw it in others as well. They have to have a chance though, if they never see the field at all you will never see it. I've also seen very good players very frustrated in rec ball because the girl who stands around and never gives any effort gets the same time as the hardest working most talented athlete. The best player on the team can learn to sit the bench and cheer on teammates that are giving the effort if you balance it right and reward effort, but too much everyone plays results in resentment in the better players and destroys motivation to get better in the others.
I suppose that is a long non-answer, but its a nuanced problem that requires a fine balance and a good coach.
- Feb 15, 2016
- 273
- 18
11 is a good number to have on the team. I personally think 12U is too early to relegate a girl who shows up and works hard to the bench in bracket. I also don't think there should be equal rotation. The players who deserve to play.more should play more after pool but not to the point that a girl is left sitting. Just my opinion. The clearly stated rules work well until implementation from what I have seen!!! I have also never seen a head coach run a team with best nine play in bracket as a rule if coach's DD is #10 or #11!
I can't speak for that team but I do want to add that I think competition to get on the field is always a good idea. If everyone on the team sees everyone will play no matter what then its easier to coast. As long as one player isn't being perpetually left out, which will be easy to manage with only 11 players, I think motivating players to earn those top spots is good.
Especially assuming these players will go on to play high school or college where the best 9 (or 10 w/ dp/flex) will play every game.
Ease them into that. And when your worst player does something great reward them! Keep them in all day on a bracket day. To me its not about punishing a bad player or even winning that extra game or two maybe, but keeping the team competitive amongst itself.
IMO …
If player development is more important than winning, you bat everyone who is meeting your standard of worth ethic and attitude.
If winning is more important than player development, you bat/play the best 9 in games that are important to you.
If winning and player development are the same, you find something in between.
But, IMO, you cannot maximize both. Whatever choice you make, you will be making at least a small sacrifice of one for the other.
Players who sit out bracket games are not being maximally developed. Yes, the bench can be motivating, and there will be examples of players who saw the bench as a turning point, but rarely does it beat playing time on a 12U travel team. If it did, parents would be clamoring to find teams where DD would be the 11th-best player, where she would get something better than playing time -- bench time! I’ve never met a parent looking for that in 12U. They're not buying that argument at that age.
As Let It Be Fun said, “’’I have also never seen a head coach run a team with best nine play in bracket as a rule if coach's DD is #10 or #11!
If coaches want to make winning the #1 priority at 12U, I will not judge that. There comes a time when winning is the #1 priority. I just don't buy the argument that this approach also will maximize player development. If winning is the #1 priority, then some players will have to make sacrifices to their player development.
If player development is more important than winning, you bat everyone who is meeting your standard of worth ethic and attitude.
If winning is more important than player development, you bat/play the best 9 in games that are important to you.
If winning and player development are the same, you find something in between.
But, IMO, you cannot maximize both. Whatever choice you make, you will be making at least a small sacrifice of one for the other.
Players who sit out bracket games are not being maximally developed. Yes, the bench can be motivating, and there will be examples of players who saw the bench as a turning point, but rarely does it beat playing time on a 12U travel team. If it did, parents would be clamoring to find teams where DD would be the 11th-best player, where she would get something better than playing time -- bench time! I’ve never met a parent looking for that in 12U. They're not buying that argument at that age.
As Let It Be Fun said, “’’I have also never seen a head coach run a team with best nine play in bracket as a rule if coach's DD is #10 or #11!
If coaches want to make winning the #1 priority at 12U, I will not judge that. There comes a time when winning is the #1 priority. I just don't buy the argument that this approach also will maximize player development. If winning is the #1 priority, then some players will have to make sacrifices to their player development.
Well, it's not my philosophy as I am only an AC. Really, I'm not a huge fan of it, but i understand it. Yes, I put my two cents in. I think I would be fooling myself if I didn't say a significant portion of the philosophy was to win when it matters. I think the second part is not simply rewarding someone for being present, even if they are working hard while being present. The girl I believe may get left out from time to time, shows up and works at an acceptable level. However, she puts no where near the work the other girls do in the off season or on her her own. So, I'm certainly not going to advocate sitting the girls who both worked harder over time and are playing better, especially when everyone has gotten and continues to get the chance to play in pool play and all games leading up to the point we start this portion of the season. Again, we don't start this until memorial day, so I may have a much different opinion once it begins. The coach doesn't have a daughter on the team. Whoever said it would be different if they did have a daughter playing is probably correct.
The problem with linking playing time to work on their own is two-fold -
One is that it's hard to know how much people are working on their own. If we say, 'It will be obvious when we see them play,' then that eliminates the need to guess. Just base it on how they play.
Two is that your best player might work the least. Not usually the case, of course, but at younger ages, it can be. On my last 12U team, we had the players keep logs of their off-season hitting. We met once a week to hit as a team to hit w/ a coach. The two that hit the least in the off-season were our best two hitters. They were just that good. So once again, we were left to base it on how they played. (Four years later, those two hitters are still on track to play in college. One is committed D-I. Sometimes, it ain't fair.
)
My thoughts on the subject are 10U and 12U should be more about individual player development no matter the level. Because of this, I would play everyone in the pool play games in every form of tournament.
Higher level tournaments: During bracket play, my best 9 would start and that may change from game to game or tournament to tournament. The others would be rotated in for a couple of innings each game. The only exception would be my pitching/catching battery.
Nationals: Bracket play would see my best 9 on the field and each of the others would see maybe an inning in the field and at least one at bat. If for some reason one of them is on fire hitting that tournament but still an average or below average fielder compared to others at her position, she would DP/Flex for the weakest hitter in the field or vice versa if they're fielding better that the others and not hitting. Having them drive/fly to the tournament, usually far from home, with all of the pageantry involved would be a waste of their time and leave a bad taste in many families' mouth if their DD didn't get into the game. I know it would with me and mine. Also, at that level of play, there's no guarantee that if they sit one whole game, there will be a next one for them to play in. These are the tournaments that most SB players will remember for the rest of their lives. Why would I make it a bad one by not letting them play?
Playing to win is fine. However, you can still do that by playing this way and getting every player involved to some extent. After all, I picked them. I coached them for the entire year and/or preceding years. IMO, if they fail on the field, it's because I failed them as a coach in not preparing them properly.
Higher level tournaments: During bracket play, my best 9 would start and that may change from game to game or tournament to tournament. The others would be rotated in for a couple of innings each game. The only exception would be my pitching/catching battery.
Nationals: Bracket play would see my best 9 on the field and each of the others would see maybe an inning in the field and at least one at bat. If for some reason one of them is on fire hitting that tournament but still an average or below average fielder compared to others at her position, she would DP/Flex for the weakest hitter in the field or vice versa if they're fielding better that the others and not hitting. Having them drive/fly to the tournament, usually far from home, with all of the pageantry involved would be a waste of their time and leave a bad taste in many families' mouth if their DD didn't get into the game. I know it would with me and mine. Also, at that level of play, there's no guarantee that if they sit one whole game, there will be a next one for them to play in. These are the tournaments that most SB players will remember for the rest of their lives. Why would I make it a bad one by not letting them play?
Playing to win is fine. However, you can still do that by playing this way and getting every player involved to some extent. After all, I picked them. I coached them for the entire year and/or preceding years. IMO, if they fail on the field, it's because I failed them as a coach in not preparing them properly.
Similar threads
