runner on third..batter walks

[Momo'sDad]

I know there are programs like that, but I would really wonder about a program that focuses heavily on wins & losses at 10U.

Shouldn't the goal at 10U be to teach them and prepare them to succeed at the next level? If you start at 10-12U teaching them the skills they will need at 14U, they certainly won't execute them well, and it may even cost them some games....but when they do get to 14U they will be playing at a higher level. I would tend to have more respect for programs that have so-so records at 10-12U, but have consistently strong teams at 14U and higher. That's likely to be an indication that they are developing the younger players and teaching them what they need to be successful at a higher level. (Bear in mind I would not recommend a 10U team that consistenly loses....that is probably a sign of poor coaching at that level).

Along the same lines...if you are a 10U parent and you are judging a program mostly based on their W/L record at that level, I'm not sure your priorities are in the right place.

Don't know too many high level travel coaches or college coaches that are impressed by (or even interested in) how many championships you won at 10U

Different people have different priorities and of course, you're welcome to wonder about whatever you'd like. Using your logic, though, the players shouldn't even be taught to look to advance to 2B on a walk at this level since they probably won't be getting away with it at 12u, and certainly not at 14u anyway. I disagree. I can't tell you what your players like, but my players like scoring runs. They enjoy it. So, as a coach, it's up to me to teach them how to be successful at getting on base, advancing, and scoring. If you wish to interpret that as 'focusing heavily on wins and losses at 10u', that's your prerogative. We call it focusing on fun in the context of learning softball, and that's what works for the program I'm running here. Parents or players who don't like that mission are welcome to explore other options.

My philosophy is that softball skills are softball skills and that those fundamentals should be taught and built upon throughout one's years in the game. However, strategies employed in playing the game will change as the players' skills are developed. We're not going out with the intention of winning every game and if you ask some parents, I'm sure some would tell you we coaches have made some boneheaded calls this season, even if we won the game. But our goal is to perform well in our end-of-season tournament, so preparing for that means taking chances and giving kids an opportunity to succeed - or fail - during other games.

Again, though, this is just the way I run my program. There is value in teaching kids how to compete and how to win, but there's also value in teaching them how to compete and lose (how to behave following or respond to a loss). Not every coach out there is going to share my philosophies, and I think that's a good thing, too.

 

[mad hornet]

At 10u try this. Have catcher quickly return the ball to the pitcher. Have second baseman positioned in the basepath in case the runner turns toward 2nd. As soon as that runner rounds first, pitcher snaps the throw to the second baseman who is in position for a quick tag and to throw out the runner on third if she goes. This eliminates trying to get her on the long throw all the way from 2nd base (70 feet +/- versus 85 feet). I've seen it work for a double play but as others have said, you must practice it.

 

[ctfastpitch]

Using your logic, though, the players shouldn't even be taught to look to advance to 2B on a walk at this level since they probably won't be getting away with it at 12u, and certainly not at 14u anyway. I disagree.

Yeah, I guess I do feel that way...but that's also because I think that waiting and having her steal is a better offensive strategy, puts more pressure on the defense, and has a better chance of success (see my previous post #16 or PA Dad's post).

I can't tell you what your players like, but my players like scoring runs. They enjoy it. So, as a coach, it's up to me to teach them how to be successful at getting on base, advancing, and scoring. If you wish to interpret that as 'focusing heavily on wins and losses at 10u', that's your prerogative. We call it focusing on fun in the context of learning softball, and that's what works for the program I'm running here. Parents or players who don't like that mission are welcome to explore other options.

Believe me, I am all for scoring runs and winning games at any age level! Winning is definitely more fun, and consistently losing is definitely not fun. My only point there is that at 10U/12U we should begin teaching them and developing skills and strategies they will use at higher levels, even if trying to execute them in game situations may cost some wins (as an example). I was reacting to your original post:

The 10u game is the 10u game. It's not the 14u game, so it should not be taught or played like the 14u game if one of the goals of the program is to be successful at 10u.

I just feel that in many ways the 10U game should be taught like the 14U game if the primary goal is to prepare them to play at 14U and beyond. Your post sounded like it was more important to win at 10U than prepare them to play at higher levels. I guess it depends on the organizations definition of "success' at the various age levels.

Sorry if I misunderstood...and like you said, different people have different approaches and not everyone will agree...and that is OK too.

 

[BB875]

I just feel that in many ways the 10U game should be taught like the 14U game if the primary goal is to prepare them to play at 14U and beyond. Your post sounded like it was more important to win at 10U than prepare them to play at higher levels. I guess it depends on the organizations definition of "success' at the various age levels.

Sorry if I misunderstood...and like you said, different people have different approaches and not everyone will agree...and that is OK too.

IMHO we all know there are huge differences in strategies between the 10U game and the 14U game. Fundamentals are the same but player development opens doors on new strategies. For example, at the 18U level the sac bunt to move a runner from 1st base to 2nd base is not a guaranteed play. Many time the defense gets the lead runner out at 2nd base. But, I would NEVER teach that defensive play to 10 year olds. It just won't work for them. So, I believe you continue to expose the kids to new ideas as they get older. I think a good coach adapts his/her strategies to the strengths and age of the team. In the end, yes, its ok to say winning is important. When success on the field is few and far between, everyone questions your approach. You can say we are working towards a bigger goal, but our society just doesn't value that approach as much as we should...

 

[SnocatzDad]

I just feel that in many ways the 10U game should be taught like the 14U game if the primary goal is to prepare them to play at 14U and beyond. Your post sounded like it was more important to win at 10U than prepare them to play at higher levels. I guess it depends on the organizations definition of "success' at the various age levels.

Sorry if I misunderstood...and like you said, different people have different approaches and not everyone will agree...and that is OK too.

I think that having gone through the entire cycle 10U to 18U you start to notice some things about kids who were taught things at 10U that don't work when they are older. What is considered good aggressive baserunning at 10U, becomes poor baserunning by 16U. Leads are too long, bases get rounded into no man's land, basically you turn live baserunners into outs. I took an hour at a 14U practice drilling every kid on how to be a baserunner at 3rd base with no outs and I think I could have spent an hour a week the entire summer on it trying to reteach what they should have been taught in the first place.

Problem is that I don't blame the 10U coaches for this, it's just the nature of the game at that age and even if you didn't teach the kids to take advantage of weak throws on defense at that age they would figure it out for themselves.

One situation that I would guess every 14U-16U coach can relate to is the first time you lose both baserunners on a SAC bunt with a runner on 1st. The lead runner gets nailed for rounding the base too far and is tagged out after the defense already got the out at one. You were willing to give up an out just to move a runner over one base which is a marginal bargain in the first place and then you end up giving the defense two outs? Makes you look for a dog to kick and whoever coached this kid before you got her is an easy target. Reality is that if it's important to you, then you have to practice it to get it right, not assume someone else taught them the "right" way when they were younger.

 

[ctfastpitch]

IMHO we all know there are huge differences in strategies between the 10U game and the 14U game. Fundamentals are the same but player development opens doors on new strategies. For example, at the 18U level the sac bunt to move a runner from 1st base to 2nd base is not a guaranteed play. Many time the defense gets the lead runner out at 2nd base. But, I would NEVER teach that defensive play to 10 year olds. It just won't work for them. So, I believe you continue to expose the kids to new ideas as they get older. I think a good coach adapts his/her strategies to the strengths and age of the team. In the end, yes, its ok to say winning is important. When success on the field is few and far between, everyone questions your approach. You can say we are working towards a bigger goal, but our society just doesn't value that approach as much as we should...

I don't disagree...ok maybe just a little. In your example, as kids get older, the sac bunt just has to be better in order to advance the runner successfully. Even at 10U/12U I would want my pitcher to know that if the sac bunt comes right back hard to her, then she should go for the lead runner. Once you establish that, then as they get older, they will get more similar opportunities on poorly executed bunts. As another example, I might teach them a basic cut play on a 1st & 3rd steal situation, then call it a few times in live games just so they see how it feels. (They probably won't make the play, but the ONE time they do, it will really impress the parents.)

Overall I agree that you should adapt strategies to the age level, but I personally would not spend much time and effort on plays & strategies that will ONLY work at 10U/12U just for the sake of winning games at that level.

 

[BB875]

I don't disagree...ok maybe just a little. In your example, as kids get older, the sac bunt just has to be better in order to advance the runner successfully. Even at 10U/12U I would want my pitcher to know that if the sac bunt comes right back hard to her, then she should go for the lead runner. Once you establish that, then as they get older, they will get more similar opportunities on poorly executed bunts. As another example, I might teach them a basic cut play on a 1st & 3rd steal situation, then call it a few times in live games just so they see how it feels. (They probably won't make the play, but the ONE time they do, it will really impress the parents.)

Overall I agree that you should adapt strategies to the age level, but I personally would not spend much time and effort on plays & strategies that will ONLY work at 10U/12U just for the sake of winning games at that level.

Agreed. Great examples.