Roster size as teams age to 14U

[BrianTx01]

I was reading this old post and was wondering how roster size corresponds to the number of pitchers a team should carry?

I think 3 is the best answer for 14U. At 5 you are not really getting the development you need at 14U.

 

[HunterMO]

I think 3 is the best answer for 14U. At 5 you are not really getting the development you need at 14U.

Agreed. 5 at 14u is unnecessary. 3 is the magic number for me. If you’re heading into a lengthier or hotter tournament then you could add one more for fill in as a safety net.

As we go through tryouts this year for DD one of my main questions will be how many pitchers they have or plan to have as an active rotation.

 

[HighStrung]

Agreed. 5 at 14u is unnecessary. 3 is the magic number for me. If you’re heading into a lengthier or hotter tournament then you could add one more for fill in as a safety net.

As we go through tryouts this year for DD one of my main questions will be how many pitchers they have or plan to have as an active rotation.

As a pitchers parent I've got to agree here. DD spent last year as the clear #1 for our team, lots of innings. #2 is decent but doesn't have a ton of stamina and #3 is a rather distant step down. It's not that often you'll hear a pitchers parent say they're getting too much time in the circle, but we were at that point this year. DD ran for about 58-60% of the innings, too much. Too much at least to be as sharp as she needed to be when we went deeper into the brackets.

In my ideal situation, we'd have a 1a & 1b, both almost the same level of pitching though each having their own qualities that they bring to the table. #3 pitcher would still be expected to be able to get the job done, but maybe still developing that highest level of skillset. I'd actually even prefer a #4 that is considered a development pitcher, someone who's working on it but isn't expected to carry the team thru the tough spots, most likely used when a comfortable lead is built or we just need to save innings on the primary 3. The #4 girl has to be made aware of her role in pitching for this team so that she understands and isn't expecting to get 30% of the innings to avoid her/parents frustration. To me, the top three are in regular rotation as starters but may be opponent specific when deciding when #3 gets the starts.

 

[BrianTx01]

As a pitchers parent I've got to agree here. DD spent last year as the clear #1 for our team, lots of innings. #2 is decent but doesn't have a ton of stamina and #3 is a rather distant step down. It's not that often you'll hear a pitchers parent say they're getting too much time in the circle, but we were at that point this year. DD ran for about 58-60% of the innings, too much. Too much at least to be as sharp as she needed to be when we went deeper into the brackets.

In my ideal situation, we'd have a 1a & 1b, both almost the same level of pitching though each having their own qualities that they bring to the table. #3 pitcher would still be expected to be able to get the job done, but maybe still developing that highest level of skillset. I'd actually even prefer a #4 that is considered a development pitcher, someone who's working on it but isn't expected to carry the team thru the tough spots, most likely used when a comfortable lead is built or we just need to save innings on the primary 3. The #4 girl has to be made aware of her role in pitching for this team so that she understands and isn't expecting to get 30% of the innings to avoid her/parents frustration. To me, the top three are in regular rotation as starters but may be opponent specific when deciding when #3 gets the starts.

You are definitely right about 1A and 1B. You need two that you can absolutely depend on the get the job done. #3 should be solid but should also have another significant role on the team. It seems like teams are always trying to get that 1A and 1B and they end up with 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, and 3C. A good pitcher is not going to want to give up innings just to make the 2s and 3s parents happy.

 

[Capone]

I think 4 is also a safe number. there are injuries, travel, sickness that prevent individuals playing in games and sometimes need to be accounted for.

 

[Nimrod]

How do you tell parents of little Susie she isn't good enough and needs to embrace a pitching "only" role?

What concerns you about an 11-player roster? What do you hope to accomplish with 12 that you can't with 11? Are you concerned about having not enough players? Or do you think your team will be a little better with 12? And do the players care if their team is a little better? I'd be open-minded to the possibility that the players will enjoy themselves more with just 11 and with Susie doing what she's always done.

My DD played on a 14U team that was one of the best 5 teams in the state one year, and it went with 10 players with an occasional pick up player. Went to a national tournament with 10. I'm not saying that was a good idea. In fact, not a good idea, but it worked. If I'm starting from scratch, I'd probably want 12, but if you already have a committed group of 11, and everybody is happy w/ that, then why mess with it? Susie would have to be pretty bad for me to reduce the role of an established player to 'pitcher only' unless it's a showcase team or a team where all the players/parents are buying into some really competitive goal that can't easily be accomplished without her pitching only.

 

[Cougars]

We are a 15u team that went with 11 this season. The team likes it because everyone is playing. It does make for some anxious moments because we're always "on the brink" of not having enough players. Drove 900+ miles last week to play in Florida. Had 1 player that couldn't make the trip. Tricky going that far knowing we were 1 tweaked ankle or jammed finger from having no subs, but made it work.

I would say if your team is doing a lot of actual travel to tournaments, more players is better. We tend to stay more local with 1 or 2 that require travel. For that, I like a leaner roster to keep everyone active.