Should playing time in rec league be based on merit?

[Momo'sDad]

***The original title of this thread could be considered by some to be political. So, the thread title was changed to more accurately reflect the content. Sluggers***

I believe that playing time at certain positions - pitcher and catcher - on a competitive rec team is earned. The innings for all other players at other positions are shared somewhat equally. A player can earn more at-bats by hitting well and moving up in the order and likewise, a player can be moved lower by making a habit of looking at strike 3. They aren't being penalized by being dropped in the lineup. They are being moved either because I wanted to mix things up or because I wanted to do what I felt was best for the team at that moment. I've got the liberty to set up the lineup however I'd like, but I certainly don't want to give a young player the impression they're being penalized for performing well at the plate, nor do I want to reward players who are not as into the game with more at-bats. I do not see anything wrong at all with putting the better hitters at the top of the lineup, which generally results in them having more opportunities to help their team be successful.

There's no free substitution in the competitive game the way there is in regular rec. I can't swap players around the way you do in rec where you bat the roster. We only bat 9, so when a sub comes in, the player coming out can re-enter only for the player who came in for them. So, no matter what a coach or parent might want, on a 13-player roster, 5 players have to play an entire game.

No, I have not been coaching very long, but I've never had a single player or parent complaint about playing time. In fact, parents routinely comment on how much they appreciate the fact that everyone plays a lot on this team. I have had player requests for more time in the circle, and I've told them and their parents how they could earn it, but never a problem with innings played. Some have chosen to work for circle time, others have not. No problem. Those who have put in the work have been rewarded accordingly.

That said, it came as a surprise to me when one of my coaches said she did not feel it was fair for some players to sit more innings in a 2-game set than other players did. The substitution rules I have to follow prevent me from being able to balance innings the way she wants me to. It takes no less than 3 games to get things close to even and takes 9 games to even everything out perfectly.

We're not going to win every game we play, nor are we going out with the mentality that we will, but I think that competing and even occasionally winning are also a part of enhancing the 'rec experience', which is something that equal innings alone cannot provide. Besides, if we do want to take a more liberal view of things, I've got a few players who's only softball experience has been on losing teams in the past. Why does this matter? Because they and their parents have stated how much they enjoy being a part of a team that has a real chance to win some games. To say it's been great for their confidence is an understatement. Sure they could've gained confidence if we were losing, but shouldn't they have the opportunity to celebrate a win? There's 1 player in particular who struggled all spring, only to become a shining star on this team.

My main point is that there is more to being a rec head coach than simply making sure that every player gets the same number of innings no matter what. Based on a lifetime of observation, trying to mandate equality in no way guarantees that those affected will enjoy or even appreciate the experience. I would even argue that doing so has the opposite effect from its intent.

 

[smallball]

I pretty much consider myself a conservative but I agree with your assistant. You can use terms like "competitive rec" all you want, but the bottom line is it's rec, and more importantly they're 10U. The players who play the best and are at the top of the lineup are playing better and batting better because they're playing more and are at the top of the lineup. Well that, and they're probably older and/or more athletic than the others, but my point is you have no idea how your #9 hitter would do at #3, 4 or 5 unless you put her there for a game or two, and you have no idea how much better the girls who don't get as much playing time can be because you don't let them play enough.

Based on a lifetime of observation, trying to mandate equality in no way guarantees that those affected will enjoy or even appreciate the experience. I would even argue that doing so has the opposite effect from its intent.

So you're basically saying a 10-year-old girl who sits more than the others and bats last wouldn't appreciate getting to play more and bat towards the top of the lineup? Do you realize how silly that sounds?

From someone who has coached plenty of youth rec, trust me when I say that once you stop focusing on giving the better players the most opportunities and start focusing on letting them all have a chance to shine, you'll be amazed--and probably surprised--at the results. I freely admit it took me a few years to learn that but I'm glad I did.

 

[Momo'sDad]

Rec just means that all the players come from the same home league. If you think that the travel league is or should not be at all competitive, however, you're mistaken. Your experiences sound different from mine, but listening to many (not all, but many) of the young players here, being competitive is fun for them. The fall season gives the young players and their families their first taste of entry-level TB. We play teams from other towns and most teams are playing to win. When it comes to the tournament, we'll be playing to win, too. Those who don't like the competitiveness and schedule of fall ball probably do not want to leave rec for TB.

The pitchers and catchers (4 total) play the most. One reason for this is that no one else on the team can play those positions, so the only way to get them any work at other positions is to give them more innings overall. Everyone else plays the same amount, regardless of talent level, because I'm of the opinion that virtually anyone can be taught to be a good fielder, both infield and outfield. Because of the rules, however, the other 9 players cannot play an equivalent number of innings in a 2-game set. The math on this is pretty simple. The player who sits more in week 1 plays more in week 2 and over the course of 9 games, it works out evenly.

The batting order is not static (I did not mean to imply that it is) and different players have been given opportunities at different spots in the lineup. So, yes, I have a very good idea as to what the 1-13 order should be if we're looking to maximize runs in a 1-game, let's try to win this one situation. While there is movement in the batting order, as we progress through the season, the better hitters will hit more near the top and once we get to the tournament, the better hitters will only bat at the top. There's a progression, however, and the way I like to do it is to give the weaker batters more opportunities earlier in the season.

While I do appreciate your response, your post indicates a search for - and even identification of - something that is not there. Every player on my teams is given the opportunity to surprise even themselves with what they're able to do. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they do not, but that's life, and when it does come together for them, it's great not only for them, but for our entire team as well. I want every player to learn and to enjoy this game, but people who are only seeing innings played in a 2-game set aren't taking into account the bigger picture.

 

[Chris O'Leary]

I'm a Libertarian, so maybe it's not a coincidence that I take a hybrid approach.

In rec and lower level select ball, I try to get most kids roughly equal, 50% play time and alternate people at spots. However, the better player always starts and I reserve the right to give one or two studs 90 to 100 percent play time.

I've never gotten a play time complaint.

Also, I base my batting order on on-base percentage and I tell that kids that all I care about is if they get on base.

I don't care how they get on base.

A few years ago, my lead-off hitter had maybe 5 hits all year. However, they also drew 2 walks per game and they were fast.

P.S. My stats are done more on a rolling average, "What have you done for me lately," basis so that kids aren't punished by a weak start. Within reason, I build my batting order based on who is getting on base in the last few games rather than just going by season stats.

 

[sluggers]

I really don't get the point of the original post...

If a coach has to play his best players at their best positions to win at rec league, then the coach needs to work on his skills.

One season in rec ball, the batting order was based on the order the kids arrived at the field. We won the league.

In another season, I batted a kid with severe developmental disabilities ahead of one of our best hitters. We won the league.

Winning at rec league softball (other than California) is not particularly difficult if you know how to coach.

My main point is that there is more to being a rec head coach than simply making sure that every player gets the same number of innings no matter what.

Rec softball is for the kids to have fun. End of story.

If a coach has a stilted view of rec ball's place in the softball universe, he should have a reality check by signing up for a 16U ASA Class A qualifying tournament in a large (population > 2,000,000) city.

Tell me how that works out for you...

 

[Momo'sDad]

Rec softball is for the kids to have fun. End of story.

You're exactly right. And how they have fun is how the KIDS define it, not the adults.

 

[left turn]

I think the basic question boils down to: What’s the purpose of rec? There are two basic choices. 1) Rec is a feeder system for travel and what is good for the best players is good for the program. 2) Rec is meant for every child that signs up for any reason. There can be hybrids of these two Rec goals, but they are polar opposites.

1) Rec as a travel feeder system - If we focus on what is best for the travel player then the less talented player will absolutely feel the power structure and the sense of up and down in terms of ability. The lesser talented players will fall out of the program at an ever younger age because they are made to feel their inferiority

2) Rec is for every child – Every child that signs up for rec deserves to be respected and dealt with where they are. The focus if the program is considered successful if that child comes back next year. The one caveat is that we should not put rec players in a position to fail. This means the power positions (short, first base, catcher and often but not always pitcher) should be typically (*) be manned by the more gifted players

When a child grows up and turns 35 and looks back at their little league years, how do we want them to remember their experience? Will they look back with warmth? For the better player they may look back at their gaudy batting average and their ease of playing at a high level in a rec league. For the purely recreational player, they look back to “that” hit or catch that turned the tide in their team’s favor.

Rec is a meritocracy- where you earn your position. Rec is for every child

We are custodians of the memories of every rec player. How do we want to be remembered?

(*) - but not always

 

[quincy]

I am not sure what the point of the original post is either but our fall 12U Rec. Manager has a continuous batting order for the season. They set the 1st game batting lineup and around and around we go. Whoever was on deck after the game’s last out leads off next game. We have 3 players that practice pitching and all 3 have pitched the exact same amount of innings. I like how he does this. My DD gets less at bats and innings pitching because of this but I still like it a lot. It’s Rec. Ball which is what we signed up for.

Player’s sitting out innings is really close but not exact. Players playing both infield/ outfield is off but understand why. As the season moves on and we have more practices the fielding positions will eventually more or less even out too.

Personally I am happy with all the above and all the parents seem to be too.

 

[GOINGDEEP]

You're exactly right. And how they have fun is how the KIDS define it, not the adults.

Any group activity or sports where competition is involved should not be simply defined as ''fun". Sure you want a level of enjoyment but as adults we need to be teaching our kids to want the drive to succeed at EVERY level. That's where our country has gone wrong. We want to make an EVEN playing field and not reward those with vision, drive, and hard work. ( entitlements )

Our DD's will be in competition all their lives. School, college, employment. Kids see more than we give them credit for, if they see one "getting extra benefits from hard work" it may push the others to advance. Instead of just slacking knowing they are "owed" something to be fair.

 

[sluggers]

This is a *SOFTBALL* discussion forum. If you want to discuss what is right or wrong with America, there are lots of other boards to go and post.

Any group activity or sports where competition is involved should not be simply defined as ''fun".l

But, the point is that the team is a *REC* team (recreational team) meaning that it is to be played for fun, not competitively.

The vast majority of people who play softball (not just fastpitch, but including slow pitch) play just for fun. And, we all know what it means to play "just for fun".

When people start trying to playing "rec softball" competitively, people tend to become delusional about how good everyone really is.

If someone has a DD on a rec team and wants to see if they can really compete, then they should find her a travel team.