| SOFTBALL TIPS |
|
|
|
| SITE STUFF |
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES
|
| • |
June 26, 2005 |
| • |
July 03, 2005 |
| • |
July 10, 2005 |
| • |
July 17, 2005 |
| • |
July 24, 2005 |
| • |
July 31, 2005 |
| • |
August 07, 2005 |
| • |
August 14, 2005 |
| • |
August 21, 2005 |
| • |
August 28, 2005 |
| • |
September 11, 2005 |
| • |
October 02, 2005 |
| • |
October 09, 2005 |
| • |
October 23, 2005 |
| • |
October 30, 2005 |
| • |
November 06, 2005 |
| • |
November 13, 2005 |
| • |
December 04, 2005 |
| • |
December 18, 2005 |
| • |
December 25, 2005 |
| • |
January 08, 2006 |
| • |
January 15, 2006 |
| • |
January 29, 2006 |
| • |
February 05, 2006 |
| • |
February 12, 2006 |
| • |
February 19, 2006 |
| • |
February 26, 2006 |
| • |
March 05, 2006 |
| • |
March 12, 2006 |
| • |
March 19, 2006 |
| • |
March 26, 2006 |
| • |
April 02, 2006 |
| • |
April 09, 2006 |
| • |
April 16, 2006 |
| • |
April 23, 2006 |
| • |
April 30, 2006 |
| • |
May 07, 2006 |
| • |
May 14, 2006 |
| • |
May 21, 2006 |
| • |
May 28, 2006 |
| • |
June 04, 2006 |
| • |
June 11, 2006 |
| • |
June 18, 2006 |
| • |
June 25, 2006 |
| • |
July 09, 2006 |
| • |
July 16, 2006 |
| • |
July 23, 2006 |
| • |
July 30, 2006 |
| • |
August 13, 2006 |
| • |
August 20, 2006 |
| • |
September 03, 2006 |
| • |
September 10, 2006 |
| • |
September 17, 2006 |
| • |
September 24, 2006 |
| • |
October 01, 2006 |
| • |
October 08, 2006 |
| • |
October 15, 2006 |
| • |
October 22, 2006 |
| • |
November 12, 2006 |
| • |
November 26, 2006 |
| • |
December 31, 2006 |
| • |
January 14, 2007 |
| • |
January 21, 2007 |
| • |
January 28, 2007 |
| • |
February 04, 2007 |
| • |
February 11, 2007 |
| • |
February 18, 2007 |
| • |
February 25, 2007 |
| • |
March 04, 2007 |
| • |
March 11, 2007 |
| • |
March 18, 2007 |
| • |
April 01, 2007 |
| • |
April 08, 2007 |
| • |
April 15, 2007 |
| • |
April 22, 2007 |
| • |
April 29, 2007 |
| • |
May 06, 2007 |
| • |
May 13, 2007 |
| • |
May 20, 2007 |
| • |
May 27, 2007 |
| • |
June 03, 2007 |
| • |
June 10, 2007 |
| • |
June 17, 2007 |
| • |
June 24, 2007 |
| • |
July 01, 2007 |
| • |
July 22, 2007 |
| • |
July 29, 2007 |
| • |
August 12, 2007 |
| • |
August 19, 2007 |
| • |
September 02, 2007 |
| • |
September 16, 2007 |
| • |
September 30, 2007 |
| • |
October 07, 2007 |
| • |
October 14, 2007 |
| • |
October 21, 2007 |
| • |
November 04, 2007 |
| • |
November 18, 2007 |
| • |
November 25, 2007 |
| • |
December 02, 2007 |
| • |
December 09, 2007 |
| • |
December 16, 2007 |
| • |
January 13, 2008 |
| • |
February 17, 2008 |
| • |
February 24, 2008 |
| • |
March 02, 2008 |
| • |
March 09, 2008 |
| • |
March 30, 2008 |
| • |
April 06, 2008 |
| • |
April 13, 2008 |
| • |
April 20, 2008 |
| • |
April 27, 2008 |
| • |
May 04, 2008 |
| • |
May 11, 2008 |
| • |
May 18, 2008 |
| • |
May 25, 2008 |
| • |
June 01, 2008 |
| • |
June 15, 2008 |
| • |
June 22, 2008 |
| • |
June 29, 2008 |
| • |
July 06, 2008 |
| • |
July 13, 2008 |
| • |
July 20, 2008 |
| • |
August 03, 2008 |
| • |
August 10, 2008 |
| • |
August 17, 2008 |
| • |
August 24, 2008 |
|
|
| SOFTBALL LINKS |
|
|
|
Practicing To Make Great Plays
by Dave
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
I am a firm believer in doing repetitious, mundane plays in practice. I like the concept of a player fielding 100 ordinary grounders every day. I like throwing drills to all bases performed many times, over and over again. This is a reaction sport in which a player does not want to stop and think in the middle of a play. She needs to have performed each particular skill thousands of times in practice. But if you (team or individual) want to stand out from the crowd, perhaps something more is required.
There are all sorts of mundane plays which any good player must execute properly in games. Fielding balls to the right, left and right at you; making throws to the left, right, home, etc.; shuffle throws, crow hops, catching balls while on the run, these are all important skills which arise on everyday ordinary plays and must be made routinely, with a success rate, if one is to step up and be a player. There are countless other plays which should be made too. Some of these are slight variations of mundane plays and some of these are more advanced. But we seldom see such things worked on in practice and I'm not sure why.
Before I get into this, many will see these plays and say, there's nothing extraordinary about them. I make (my daughter makes / my team makes) plays like that routinely. We practice those all the time. That may be but not everyone thinks along those lines and few teams actually practice any of it.
The best example of a play which is just ouside the mundane happens when a shortstop goes to her knees on a ball up the middle. That is considered to be routine by many a good shortstop. But a 12U or 14U SS may not ever practice such a play. The best do but most do not.
There are a couple aspects to making a play when diving to the grounder up the middle. For one thing, there is the dive and making the judgment that I am going to get this ball if and only if I dive. That takes experience. I understand the need to field 100 balls in front, just to either side, etc. But at some point, the quality SS needs to have enough repetitions on balls just outside her reach, unless she dives, to distinguish such plays. You sometimes see infielders even at the highest levels fail to recognize quickly enough a ball they must dive for. The more practice, the better!
The dive itself needs work in terms of posture, footwork, laying out, and getting the ball. I won't give you a mechanical diagram for this - that's beyond my scope here. You can handle this. Watch a bunch of shortstops laying out for balls and copy their movements.
Now, our intrepid SS knows when to dive for a ball up the middle. She is skilled at diving and makes the play on the ball most of the time. But she hasn't got anyone out yet. After the grounder is caught, she needs to get up and make the throw, or learn to throw from her knees. That's simple enough but she needs to do it and repeat it so she gets the right feel. This whole exercise requires repetition. And the very best shortstops do this in practice. They don't just jump out onto the field with all that natural talent and make spectacular plays.
Other similar drills need to be worked for all infield positions and it is nearly impossible to list them all here. I'll just mention some of these because I know you are smart enough to identify important but nonmundane plays and then devise drills for them.
A similar drill to the above needs to be run for the second baseman who has to dive to her right on balls up the middle. She'll also need drills for balls to her left which require a dive. And she will possibly need to work on making throws from her knees and/or one knee. The shortstop is going to need work on plays in the hole. And lest I forget, they are going to need to make these plays followed by throws to each of the bases, including home.
It may seem counter-intuitive for a shortstop to need to go into the hole and then make a throw to home but comnsider a hard shot line-drive in which the SS dives and knocks down the ball while the runner from third retreats to avoid being doubled off and then breaks for home when the ball hits dirt. A good throw needs to be made to nail her, a good practiced throw!
Similarly, the third baseman needs to be able to dive on hard smashes, retrieve the ball, and then make a throw to any of the bases or maybe get up and step on third. We see these plays all the time. We marvel at the athleticism of the fielder when she records an out as the result of some spectacular diving stab. But when she gets up and throws the ball over the first baseman's head or fails to make any play recording an out, we yawn and think, "that was a nice play but...." Throws from the dirt on good plays must be followed by a putout in order to really gain notice! And like any other throw, these should be practiced.
There are two kindred plays a third baseman can make to stand out from the crowd. One involves the ball that nagging slapper bounces into the dirt. She pounds the ball so hard that it doesn't come down to earth in time for you to even attempt a throw. Well, she does have 1.3 speed (I'm making that up) and the ball was in the air for 1.5 seconds! But most of the time, you could get that ball in time to just barely make a play, if you practice it. And practicing it could benefit you when the batter is a more realistic 2.9 runner or is some other hitter who accidently does the same thing.
If you just stand there and wait for the ball to come down, then snag it with your glove, reach in and grab it with your throwing hand, hop into position, and then throw, you probably aren't going to get even the 3.8 runner out. The third baseman on a chopper needs to do a bit more. This could involve a jump for the ball but that's probably relatively inefficient - it looks good but accomplishes nothing. This could involve barehanding the ball immediately into a throw. That involves working on the footwork required to set up while simultaneously charging the ball and practicing barehanding choppers. A coach could help a third baseman by initially soft tossing balls into the air in front of her, having her charge, grab and throw to first or shuffle to home for those bases loaded situations. Then assuming the practice infield is hard enough, a coach, with some practice, could learn to hit some good choppers for her to work the skill.
The second play for a third baseman to work in order to stand out from the crowd is similar to the shortstop's play. She dives to grab the smash hit to her right, just barely in fair ground, gets up and throws to first in time to nail the runner. An important variation of this is, again, when bases are loaded, to dive for the ball and come up throwing from her knees to home. I've seen this oplay accomplished and the crowd expresses their delight. I;ve also seen three quarters of the play get executed and then be followed by an errant throw. These skills need work with respect to footwork and throwing from knees when necessary. If you never work them in practice, I'll lay odds against these plays ever culminating in an out during a game.
Another play which a good softball player should make but which sometimes doesn't happen is the low pop-up behind first base. Many first and second basemen make an attempt to field this ball but they fail by a step or because they didn't dive for the ball. They missed it by a step because they didn't recognize the opportunity, didn't turn quickly enough, took bad steps to the ball, or otherwise just didn't have enough practice at this.
I strongly suggest going over the footsteps needed to make such a play and then repeating them, over and over again. Then I suggest running a drill for first basemen in which a coach tosses the ball behind first base, into both fair and foul ground. The player should try to make the catch and the coach should try to throw the ball just out of range. The player should be encouraged to dive when necessary - its opretty soft back there, isn't it? The coach should not take the approach that if he or she throws it out of the player's range, an adjustment into the range should be made.
The same play is important for second basemen. That is, sometimes the ball will be struck badly but fly beyond the potential reach of the first baseman, well beyond the possible retrieval by the rightfielder, and into "no man's land." In softball, these types of hits usually happen in the late innings with runner on third and two outs! If the second baseman can get there and make that catch, games can be turned from losses to victories. But the 2B has to know how to take a good route to the ball and when to dive. This can only be accomplished, other than in times of great luck, by practicing the play. These plays can be practiced the same way those for the first baseman can. Actually, it would be great to practice pop-ups into no man's land with 1B, 2B and RF all involved so the three fielders can get used to each other's abilities and ranges in order to avoid collisions. The SS and LF have a similar play in "no man's land." These could also involve the third baseman though most of the time, she's up so far that it seems unlikely that she'll get into that position.
A related play which could be worked in practice occurs when there is a gifted slapper up and she pops one into no man's land on either side of the field. These are really low, soft linedrives more than popups but they take basically the same route to the ball by fielders. If you've got a slapper defense set up, the outfielders are probably closer in. Maybe the SS is in tighter too, though somebody need to be situated so as to be able to go after balls hit right behind third. Some slapper D's I have seen put the 3B back by the bag and in those circumstances she can handle these plays. But when you have that gifted slapper who can lift the ball out beyond the infielder's reach down along the lines, your outfielders need to be able to make diving plays. And they need to practice these. I have often seen good slappers do this but I've never seen a team practice to defense it.
There are other diving plays for outfielders though the situations when diving is an acceptable strategy are important to go over. And teaching outfielders how to dive so as to be able to block the ball should they not succeed in catching it is equally important. The best outfielders are aggressive going after short liners. They often dive for them. But when the ball lands short of their reach, the best outfielders do not lay mired in their defeat. Instead, they tend to block the ball and keep it in front of them.
Catchers and other players have plays outside routine they can work on but I hesitate to call anything the catcher sees nonroutine. Still, many catchers practice throws to bases from a standing position but fail to work on them from their knees. I like to perform a drill in which a coach throws balls in the dirt to a catcher stationed in her regular catching position. Those are great to develop the necessary muscle memory for blocking low pitches. But why not add a throw, especially to third and also to second, from the down in the dirt blocking position? There are many occassions in which this play is necessary but if this is never practiced, a catcher is not going to throw out the runner as often as she might if they were.
Pitchers often get short shrift in infield drills. I've told you I like to run the drill where the pitcher throws a pitch to a catcher and a coach stationed just off the plate hits grounders at her feet, the pitcher fields them and throws to the various bases. I don't want to get into the habit of trying to really drill balls right back at her. These can result in injuries. I don't want to send three pitchers to the emergency room two days before a tournament. But the coach could hit fairly hard smashes using softees. I should note that these kinds of plays are probably more reliant upon the underlying athleticism of the pitcher than they are on any kind of practice. The more important aspect than fielding the balls is making the throw.
You have heard many people talk about the infielder's "internal clock." That is a developed sense of how much time she really has to make a play on the runner. This is displayed in all sorts of circumstances but never more so than in the type of plays we are talking about today. If the shortstop goes into the hole, dives, retrieves the ball and then makes a throw to first a full second after the runner gets there, thereby allowing the runner moving to second to proceed easily to third, that's a bad play. She has to develop the sense of when to hold the ball and when to make a throw. That sense can only be developed through repetition. So any of the drills we are talking about here could and should be performed with baserunners involved. That will help fielders develop that internal clock and avoid turning great plays into really bad ones.
There are other types of drills which can be worked into a practice which develop the skills needed to make great plays. We do some of these but altering a few elemtns of other drills can help build the extraordinary skills we seek. In softball the ground ball double play is a rarity. Yet, we run this in our ordinary infield practice because we recognize that the skills can be important in various circumstances.
When there is arunner on second and the batter drills a ball straight at the 2B or SS, most often the runner at second will find herself 5 steps from the back and off balance. She staggers, stops, and then returns as quickly as possible to the bag to avoid being doubled off. Most often, when this happens, the other middle infielder is off shooting craps or texting her girl friends. Everyone looks at the fielder who caught the ball, then to the runner trying to regain her balance, then over to the vacant bag. The opportunity for a double play is lost. And then we all look to the other middle infielder who stands there with an blank stare in her eyes and egg of her face. Sometimes, the other middle infielder has good instincts and runs to cover, arriving just before the baserunner. But the girl with the ball is waiting for her arrival before making the throw. The fielder beats the runner but the throw comes in well after she has returned.
If we practice this situation, it is just possible that we'll build a reaction which happens automatically in games. The two middle infielders are positioned properly and a coach hits light liners to short or second from a position around the pitcher's plate. One fielder makes the catch while the other races to cover the bag. The fielder with the ball leads the one covering the bag so she can catch the ball in full stride and double up the runner. These drills use the various types of throws one middle infielder might make to the other, overhand, dart, underhand, shuffle. The more we work this, the higher the likelihood we'll see one of those very convenient double plays when the score is tied 0-0 and we're trying to get an out in ITB.
You might be able to make any or all of these plays without ever having practiced them. Maybe you are just a great athlete who makes these sorts of non-routine plays routinely. Maybe you are a natural. Maybe you are just that good and your team all has ESP. They can read each other's thoughts, motions and body language immediately. They know when they don't have to go after a ball because Sally is going to get it. They can make double plays blind folded. Then again, even if you are that good, I have to wonder why practicing these things would hurt you.Labels: coaching, defense
Permanent Link: Practicing To Make Great Plays
 
Temperments - Chemistry
by Dave
Sunday, August 24, 2008
MLB manager, Joe Torre, claims there is nothing to "team chemistry." He says winning takes care of chemistry. If a team wins, chemistry appears to be in place but if the same team loses, you have personalty issues. I may be wrong about this but I totally disagree.
I have been proven wrong many times before and I'll be proven wrong many times in the future. With these Olympic games which come to an end tonight, I suppose you can find many ways in which I am wrong. To me many of these sports need tweakings, need to be changed slightly in order to make them better. For instance, I am disappointed by the diving competition. I don't like that, in the finals, perhaps the top 6 are determined with the first or first two dives, the top three are evident after 3 or 4, and the top 3 or 4 are really the only ones who have a shot at earning a medal. Not only that, each of the top divers performs basically the same dive and the one who is just slightly better usually wins. I'd like to see diving become more dynamic, more like a backyard contest. I think diving would be improved if everyone had a shot at a medal if they were able to suddenly pull off something unique.
If say the diver in last place were able to perform something nobody else was even willing to attempt, a 4 or 5 rotation flip on his or her last dive, he or she should be able to stun the crowd and steal the gold by the feat. This would result in at least 6 of the divers trying something that has never been done before and push the sport. There would be at least 4 or 5 divers landing awkwardly and needing to be helped from the pool with completely reddened side or stomachs, writhing in pain though no real damage has been done. It would be more like impromptu contests in your backyard in which Jimmy seeks to outclass Joey, who just did a perfect one and a half, by attempting a two and a half but missing the dive rather completely.
Further, I am somewhat bored when the gold, silver and bronze medalists at say 400 meters run in one four person track relay in which they have to run the same distance. I'd like to see modifications in which a bunch of runners line up for the first hand-off and the guy in the lead gets to pick who he wants to hand the thing off to. This would, of course, result in all sorts of controversy with guys and gals from varying nations making secret pacts. It would also cause commotion on the podium as multiple national anthems would have to be played for the winning team made up, perhaps, of runners from four different nations. But you have to admit it would make things more interesting.
I wouldn't mind it if the games could come to a close with an event like a large contest of tug of war in which all nations would together teams (both genders, multiple disciplines) trying to win the final gold medal. The losers would, obviously, suffer the indignity of getting covered with mud while the winners would remain clean. The podium would be great entertainment and the closing parade would require that participants in the tug of war come as they are, covered with mud if they didn't win the gold, though toweling off their faces would be allowed.
Further, I would like to see track or the Olympic games in their entirety create a true medley relay. It might involve runners, pole vaulters and javelin throwers who must complete basically a full course before claiming victory. Better yet, I would like to see a running relay event in which teams would have to use athletes from a choice of different disciplines. It might be OK to use a track star as anchor leg but you'd have to have one runner from the sports of badminton, table tennis, or fencing as one leg, another from one of the pool sports (divers and swimmers are notoriously slow runners) and perhaps somebody from another batch of sports like boxing, wrestling, etc.. The devil may be in the details, and somebody else can work these things out, but the idea would be at least 3 of 4 (perhaps 7 of 8) runners would have to come from disciplines which do not produce fast runners. The event could cap the games in a manner which cannot be duplicated by pre-filmed fireworks, actors lip-sinking songs by others, or a parade of professional athletes who won gold medals in events they have worked at for 30 years. What I want to see, what I'm willing to pay for, is an event in which contestancs might potentially look foolish, where the team in last through 70% of the event could reasonably expect to place first because they have a bunch of rank amateurs who worked at something unfamiliar or pulled off soemthing nobody has ever even attempted before.
But, like I said, I have been wrong before, will be wrong in the future and may be wrong now. I've found difficulty locating anyone who agrees with my thoughts on diving. Some have laughed at the other prospective events I propose. Nobody really agrees with me on any of this and that's OK. I suppose I just see things differently. Now back to my ideas on team chemistry.
It amuses me when I read about a "blue ribbon panel" working together to solve some problem. The panel is usually made up of a bunch of "leaders" in some field who are expected to get together and do what they've always done, find the best solution. But these panels don't usually have any workhorses. Everyone is used to holding the reins. And often the work product of such a "blue ribbon" panel is what we call a "horse designed by a committee."
A horse designed by a committee is called a camel, a nasty beast which spits and bites while refusing to submit to most riders. Its back has a hump on which a sadle does not fit. It is a great pack animal - I've got nothing against camels per se - but a camel is not a horse - the west would not have been won were it not for the horse, if only camels were around! A "horse designed by a committee" in US parlance, is generally characterized by the lack of a unifying vision.
If you read much about softball recruiting, you get the overwhelming impression that college coaches are looking for entire teams made up of strong leaders. They want only girls who take charge, on the field and off, and push their teammates to be better. I can understand that concept but on the other hand, if someone is going to take the lead in any pursuit, somebody (or somebodies) is (are) going to have to submit to being led.
To me, the head coach is usually the general. His or her assistant coaches are the lieutenants and captains. The on-field leaders are really sergeants and the rest of the crew is typically privates of varying grades. The sergeant is probably the most interesting person in any military setting since he or she is supposed to both lead, sometimes harshly, while simultaneously submitting completely to being led by superior officers.
The sergeant must lead a small band to accomplish precisely what others have commanded to be done. The superiors have the overall vision. The sergeant must accomplish a small piece of that vision and he or she may not even know what the vision is. The sergeant must answer the question posed by grunts, "why are we doing this," swiftly and masterfully while obtaining total submission and getting the thing done in accordance with orders.
To me, what anyone putting together a team would be looking for is sergeants. Perhaps it is more complex than that - I want privates who, after gaining experience will be suitable for the role as sergeant, sergeants who will rise in grade over time, and perhaps one or two sergeants who aspire to one day becoming lieutenants, captains and even generals. But they must be willing to work initially as privates, earn the sergeant role, be willing to step into the role of lieutenant should the need arise, and respect that the general has earned his or her right to command.
"Leaders" are not always incapable of being led but the worst disagreements occur between two leaders who have slightly different visions to go with their large egoes. You do not often see big disagreements between a leader and the one submitting to being led. There may be skirmishes but these are usually resolved quickly. The biggest brawls, the wars, the bloodiest battles, occur where you have two seeking to prove they are top dog, two seeking to prove that their vision is the best one, two unwielding alpha males or females. And in nature, the alphas are willing to put the very existence of the pride at risk in order to secure and maintain alpha status.
This phenomenon is evident in every facet of nature - the alpha male or female is challenged by the rising star who either is defeated, leaving the alpha in his or her place, or wins the day, thereby becoming the new alpha. So has it been through the millenia in all things natural and all things human. So let it be written, so let it be done, so let it be recognized by everyone that this is human nature. Let it be acknowledged by all that this is as much a natural law as gravity. Someone must lead but that presupposes that someone must be led.
Further to the discussion, in any complex endeavor, there are specialized skills required to accomplish different subsets of the whole. A guy who can draw a picture of what a building is supposed to look like or diagram the plumbing, cooling or electrical systems may not be able to hit a nail in straight, lay out rebar, weld steel beams together or carry bricks up a ramp. Take the cooks out of the kitchen, have them serve tables while the wait staff does the cooking and what you get is a disaster. Place an investigator in charge of directing traffic through the crime scene area and we're all going to have to endure a horrendous traffic jam.
Society has been based on specialization for the entirety of its existence. Somebody was better at piercing the woolly mammoth with his spear. Somebody was better at carving out the edible parts than he was at bringing the thing down. Somebody was better at recognizing that we need to eat veggies with all that meat, or we're headed for severe irregularity, and then finding the veggies somewhere in the wild. Somebody said, "hey, I can make something out of the beast's skins and tusks that will keep us warm and help us on future hunts." Somebody built the shelter or led others to put the thing together. In all of human history and prehistory, a few were better at this or that than others and naturally they took on roles associated with their skill set.
Softball is almost as complicated a matter or project as anything else in human society. That's why we have coaches. That's why some of the coaches work with the infield or outfield, the catchers or pitchers. That is why we have girls who mostly play outfield, infield, pitch or catch. The skill set of the shortstop, while certainly compatible with that of other positions, is not always nearly identical. Third basemen don't necessarily play centerfield with as much skill as they do their regular spot. Catchers don't often sub at short or second. Our first baseman doesn't head out to center to fill a gap after injury. The pitcher doesn't usually go behind the plate when she's not pitching, the catcher doesn't usually take of her gear and relief pitch - indeed we discourage pitchers and catchers from pursuing the opposite number in youth ball because we see the two positions as somewhat incompatible.
Our leadoff hitter isn't usually ready to fill the clean-up role. We don't usually pinch hit the power hitter for the kid with high OBA when we need baserunners. We style our benches so we have flexibility and can offer up "different looks" when we need to.
Even within positions, we recognize that certain players bring different things to the table. We might have someone who can really hit playing the outfield while a weaker hitting, better fielding person sits the bench. We don't often do that with key defensive positions such as short or center. In the best of all possible worlds we would want our shortstop and outfielders to all be the best bats and gloves they can be. But when push comes to shove, we are willing to compromise one skill for another so as to have the best mix of players on the field. This is why, for example, in MLB, we see a .254 great defensive catcher remain in the big leagues while a .270 hitting outfielder gets sent down to the minors.
The more complicated and advanced a particular pursuit becomes, the greater the specialization. Baseball on the professional level is arguably much more advanced (specialized) than fastpitch. There are possibly more players in the minor leagues of baseball than there are playing college softball. And in baseball, we see pitchers who never hit, pitchers who only get the last 3-6 outs of any game, hitters who never play the field, etc. We can see the development of softball in the way that, as time progresses, fewer and fewer pitchers hit, fewer and fewer aces pitch every inning of three games against one team. There is slightly greater specialization with each passing year in this sport.
And when we put together entire rosters, we need to mix up the overall skill set, even at individual positions, in order to create the best, most balanced team we can. We might have one fireballing pitcher whose movement is weaker than the other kid who can bend the ball around a batter's head. We try to find up-pitchers, down-pitchers, screwballers, curveballers, lefties and righties, etc., in order to be able to show different looks should the need arise. More and more, there are pitching staffs rather than ace pitchers who throw every inning. And that development is how it should be. That development demonstrates the growth of the sport.
We want slappers, power hitters, contact hitters, good sacrifice bunters, draggers, those who thrive with runners on, those who set the table, in order to put together a good overall offense. It is extremely rare for a team to put up 9 batters who all can and often do hit the ball over the fence. It would be unusual for a team to have 9 slappers in the lineup. A far more frequent occurrence on a good team happens when a couple kids have high on base percentages but can't hit the ball far and a few kids can drive the ball but hit for lower averages or are too aggressive to walk much, and maybe hit for higher averages when anybody is on base than they do leading off innings.
Every sport, particularly team sport, that has been around long enough, experiences a growth in the specialization of its athletes. The more complex a game is, the more susceptible to specialization of its participants. The more complex a game is, the greater the number of players in the contest, the more the make-up of participants needs to be a complex mix not only of mechanical skills but also of leadership and other psychologically-based skills.
The occassion of this writing has something to do with the US softball team's loss in the gold medal game. I find that I'm not as upset by the loss as many other US-based softball purists I know. Personally, I don't like a contest in which possibility of loss does not exist. Right now, I guess the only team which has a reasonable chance to beat the US is Japan. Obviously, there were only 8 teams in the whole tourney and I think that maybe a mistake since all but those participant nations would be disinclined to watch any of the competition. Knowing that softball is no longer an Olympic game, hopefully just for the time being, I think, should it re-emerge, it could be changed for the better.
I would be offended if say the Ethiopian team were to make it to the medal game because they used a high-arc pitcher able to drop the ball into the strike zone from 35 feet up. But on the other hand, it would be interesting to see some sort of ambidextrous pitcher with a wicked curveball from either side who would switch her mitt in accordance to the batter. But that's all pretty much nonsensical rambling. What would make gold medals in softball more valuable to me is the possibility of any of several nations winning the thing and I believe that's the direction the sport will hopefully go.
A final observation, really the thing which got me going on this, is aside from it being OK to me for the US to have lost the gold, is it seems as if there wasn't quite enough diversity on Team USA's roster. I'm not talking racial, religious or other sociological diversity. What I'm referring to is leadership and skill set diversity.
Again, I could be wrong about this but I don't think the US pitching staff was emotionally diverse enough. We can all look to NCAA championships and recognize that when things got really tense, Cat Osterman has a proven tendency to get over-adrenalized and then overthrow her breaking stuff. I think we all know fully well that she needs to be in the 58-62 mph range. And when she gets up to 65, she is far more hittable. Further, when Abbott gets over-adrenalized, she can lose the plate or, worse, get called for taking too much time between pitches. I'm not sure where Jennie Finch fits into this. And I'm not sure any of it matters in the loss. But I do think the US pitching staff might have been composed differently, more diversely. And I think that also applies to the team as a whole. I believe there were too many leaders, not enough followers. I believe these things sometimes are only evident in the worst circumstances, the final contest. I believe any team relies upon chemistry in the final analysis. Chemistry is not disclosed when winning is happening as readily as oxygen is consumed. But when the air gets really thin, when the going gets almost impossible, then chemistry is revealed, and only the best put together machine or building can withstand the stress. And that's my quirky thought for the day.Labels: coaching, mental toughness, news, teams
Permanent Link: Temperments - Chemistry
Crossroads
by Dave
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The team has come to a crossroads. In order for things to progress and continue, something has to change. When we started out in rec all-stars or early travel, at the age of 8, 9, 10, even 11 for some, it was good enough to have the kids coached by a few parents. Heck, those parents knew much more about the lay of the land in club travel fastpitch softball than the rest of us. They all had prior experience with older daughters and knew the game much more than we did. We deferred to their decision making authority because we really did not know any better. But as time has worn on, some major definiciencies have reared their ugly heads and it is time to do something about this before the team completely splits up.
There are many team coaching/management arrangements out there. But without getting into all of them, the team which started out in 10U ball with a few parents coaching is the single most common one. As these teams progress, sometimes questions arise. Maybe certain hard and fast rules are ignored because one guy or gal makes the decisions for the team and his or her own parental responsibilities conflict with the team's well being.
For example, I can think of an instance in which a team I was involved with had several pitchers who had about the same level of effectiveness. Sometimes one particular father would shove his daughter to the head of the pack, probably believing she was the best on the team. He might use a different set of rules for his daughter than he would for another pitcher. At one point, the four team coaches got together and developed a "best practices" approach with respect to pitching-change decisions on elimination days. They developed a rule which stated that a pitcher will be removed from an elimination game when she has yielded 3 runs unless the team is still ahead by 5 runs or unless there are other strong extenuating circumstances. Then during the first game played after the establishment of the rule, the starting pitcher yielded 2 runs before recording an out in the first inning. One coach turned to the father of the girl, a coach, and said, one more and we have to pull her. The father turned and said, "Both those runs were scored on errors. They weren't her fault. We could have had Jennie Finch pitching and they still would have scored." His thinking was something like, "I'm not letting you pull my daughter in this circumstance." He wasn't willing to blindly apply the rule he had helped develop. The rule didn't apply to his daughter.
The truth was those plays may have been errors or they may not have been. One ball got past the third baseman but it was hit 98 miles per hour and rolled to the fence because the left fielder couldn't even get to it before it got past her. Another ball nearly killed the SS. And the final straw, the play on which the runners scored, was indeed an error, one made by the pitcher herself as she suffered from the shell-shock of being hit so hard. These were not the extenuating circumstances everyone had contemplated. The rule should have applied but it didn't. The team went on to lose 5-4 when the pitcher yielded 3 additional runs and was never pulled.
After the game, a few parents mumbled amongst themseleves but not to that coach, "I thought pitchers would be pulled after 3 runs?" The father-coach was never the wiser, thought "oh well, we lost one, too bad," and believed nobody was particularly angry with him. Think again!
When things like this happen, often what occurs is the other pitchers leave for other teams in order to become aces or at least get more time in the circle. They don't want to play second fiddle for their entire lives to the daughter of the head coach or the one who pushes hardest. They can live with losing but they want to live in a world in which decisions like this one are more objective, more predictable. There's nothing quite like recognizing the existence of two classes of people when one realizes one is in the lower class.
Sometimes the coaches don't have daughters who pitch. But they do play other key positions, sometimes with the result of reduced playing time of a kid with better skills. These circumstances are often not egregious ones but they do raise the hackles on the back of the necks of other parents, whether their kid is directly effected or not. Any error made by the coach's kid while yours is riding the pine creates double the pain. A second error causes the parent of the bench warmer to offer, "If that were my kid out there making those errors, I'd want the coaches to pull her out. But that kid will stay in regardless of how many errors she makes, even if it costs us the game!"
There are some coaches out there who never yell. I do not believe they are in the majority. Assuming you are on a team with a coach who yells, the question is, at whom does he or she yell and under what circumstances? I have been involved with teams on which only the top 3 or 4 girls on the team ever get yelled at. I have been involved with teams on which only the coaches' kids really get yelled at. I have also been involved with teams on which only the kid who competes with one coach's daughter for playing time at a particular position ever gets yelled at - the idea being to establish in others' minds the point that this particular kid isn't quite that good and my daughter should probably play more time at the position. There are many different variations of this but whenever a parent coach yells at some kid, questions are almost always raised.
This can really be a problem at practices. Walk up to any field and notice who is disturbing the flow of things. That is almost invariably a coach's kid. Fathers and/or mothers would yell at these kids but they recognize that they will not achieve the desired results - their kid won't listen to them. That creates stress. Then when some other kid, taking the lead from the coach's daughter, begins to cause trouble, she usually gets it twice over to make up for the parent's inability to yell at his or her own kid.
Another phenomenon we see with parents coaching teams is the parents who are not coaches want to make contributions too. They'll make sure their kid doesn't disobey the coaches ... even ... if ... that ... means ... coming into the dugout in the middle of games to set her straight. These parents really do appreciate that the coach can't be expected to always straighten out their kid. That applies equally to behavioral issues and softball technical ones. Maybe Bob doesn't see than my Sharon is out of position in right. She's oblivious to everything, don't know what I'm gonna do with that kid, "HEY SHARON MOVE WHAT ARE YOU DOING, MOVE OVER TOWARDS CENTER." So, instead of four designated parents coaching the team, what we have is 24 coaches, depending on who shows up at each game or practice. Once this dynamic starts, it is impossible to stop!
I have seen situations in which pitchers' or other players' parents who coach have put their kids ahead of others regardless of one of those kids being head and shoulders above the coach's daughter. Sometimes I have seen the reverse occur.
I can think of at least one situation in which a pitcher's parent made sure to keep her out of games against the very best competition because the parent was afraid the kid might fail. Some people put growth in confidence well ahead of learning to compete. They want their daughter to pitch perfect games against nobody in particular rather than to learn to compete with the best and face losing 3-2.
The precise reasons for discontent in parental coaching situations don't so much matter. The bottom line is, if a parent is making team decisions, if a parent makes all disciplinary decisions, it is sort of expected that he or she may sometimes make wrong ones attributable to the parental relationship with one member of the team. Everybody makes mistakes of one kind or another but the issue under these circumstances is the other parents and the kids themselves are likely to see this problem as a continuing one, not likely to disappear over time and via gained experience, and then lose faith in the team structure. This becomes more and more apparent as girls get older. I would guess that these situations can evolve as early 12U ball, are more evident at 14U, and become absolutely intolerable by 16U.
Whatever the age, whatever the circumstance, the question is, what do we do about it? Well, the "12 families" got together, discussed the issue (aired the grievances), and hopefully agreed to stay together. Before we moved on, it was necessary to create a group decision-making process. We decided that, if all the girls agreed to stick together through thick and thin, all decisions would be made by a minimu vote of 8-4. It was a constitutional moment. We had to agree to agree or we would be mired in bureaucratic hand-ringing. Let's leave that to government.
After we established a decision making format, the first issue on the table was the little thing about parental team issues. That's what brought us to the table. How do we resolve this?
One proposal was to find someone outside the 12 sets of parents and bring them in as a volunteer coach. That's a nice idea but the truth is, it is extremely difficult to find someone willing to undergo the rigors of coaching a travel club as a volunteer. Some organizations can do that but nobody at this table can think of a single individual suitable for the role who would be willilng to do the job. So that one was tossed. The best idea and one on which the vote was 12-0, was to hire a coach from outside the org and have her (preferably a female - 11-1 vote) train the girls and make the important decisions. And that's where we left things.
So, now the question is, what does one pay to a "professional" travel team coach and what is expected of her? That's at the heart of this writing.
Before we begin to look for the qualities of the coach, the first item which came up for discussion is what will it cost us, what will we pay her. Personally, I've heard figures tossed around between $2,500 and $5,000. With 12 kids, the bottom line nut would be anywhere between $200 and as high as $500 once certain incidentals are factored in. That's quite a range. How do we evaluate it?
The only way I can think of evaluating what to set as an expected range for the hired coach's salary is to list out the time we will need her based on our annual calendar. Here's about what that looks like:
1) The year begins with tryouts in August. But in this case, we have an intact team and will not be conducting tryouts.
2) The team plays fall ball in September-November. These games usually are played in some league in which double headers (total 3 hours each) are played on Sundays over 8 weeks = 24 hours. The team generally might practice a few times during the fall for an hour and a half each time - let's say that totals to 9 hours. They also play a couple two day tournaments with each day taking up approximately 7 hours of everyone's time = 28 hours. Most of November, the team will take off. So that totals to about 61 hours. But, to be reasonable, the coach doesn't need to be there every double header. We're playing these just to keep our feet wet. If she can be there for the practices and the two tournaments, that cuts it down to 37 hours.
3) We won't get going hot and heavy in December. Perhaps the team will do some clinics and get together for a couple two hour sessions during the entire month. That's just about maybe 4 total hours.
4) In January and February, things really get going with 9 weeks of 2 practices each lasting say 2 hours. The coach must be there for these. The total number of hours should be about 36.
5) During the March to May time period, these girls will be playing with their school teams, some of which prohibit any activity (especially travel ball) during their seasons. We can conduct a few practices without the prohibited girls but there isn't much sense to holding many sessions with a partial team. Let's call that 16 hours of practice. Lest I forget, we're probably going to enter a couple (maybe 3) one-day tourneys/round-robins on Sundays late in the season. Varsity players will be excused from attending but anybody below that level will be expected to come. So will the coach and that adds another 21 hours to her schedule. This brings the total time commitment to about 37 hours over these three months.
6) Things get hot and heavy in June and July. We'll play 5 2-day tournaments, one 4-6 day event, probably at some nationals, and the girls will be expected to practice twice per week for two hours each session. Of course, the last two weeks of July will be the final big tournament so let's figure 6 weeks worth of practice. The total time commitment for the coach looks like 70 (5 X 2-days at 7 hours per day for regular tourneys) + call it 30 for the big one + 24 hours of practice, for a total of 124 hours.
If my practice schedule looks light to you, consider that I build in assumptions including personal participation at strength/agility training and perhaps technical lessons and clinics for all girls. The hired coach need not attend these and, in fact, is probably not welcome.
So the total time commitment for our hired coach stands at 238 hours with some whiggle room should we need to adjust it downwards. For instance, we could cut out the entire fall season. That would cut it down 37 hours to a total of about 200.
In any event, if we divide the expected salary range of $2,500 to $5,000, we are left with somewhere between $12.50 and $25.00 per hour excluding certain incidental costs such as hotel rooms (end of year national tournament), car costs, etc. $12.50 is probably just barely above McDonalds' wages and a bit lower than Home Depot / Wal-Mart. $25 is a nice decent wage for the type of person we're looking for.
And, yes, that brings us to the type of person who would best fit the needs of a youth travel team. I suppose the best possible circumstance would be someone who has played college ball in the recent past and/or has coached a bit at the school ball level. Most likely, with this schedule, we're not going to attract someone who has 25 successful seasons of coaching top level high school ball. We may pull in an assistant coach (part-time) at a small college but that seems a bit of a reach.
Another option is a girl currently in college though I'm not certain of the NCAA ramifications of that - she'll most likely have to be from a Div II or III school. I have seen college players coach for certain organizations but I'm uncertain of the divisions in which they play.
A final option, perhaps the best one is a recent graduate who has not figured out exactly what she wants to do yet. Perhaps she is giving batting or pitching instruction on the side while she substitute teaches or works part-time someplace. Maybe her career goals are ultimately to coach in high school or college and she needs to build her resume. Coaching a 16U or 14U travel team that turns out to be pretty successful might go a ways towards qualifying a new teacher or part-time employee to be an assistant at a lower level college or even to obtain a high school head coaching position. I can think of at least a couple people whose primary qualification for a HS coaching position was experience in travel. I'm not sure what college coaching positions require but I would think that experiences in travel couldn't hurt.
A gal who is making ends meet via part-time teaching stints, a few weekly softball lessons, perhaps an assistant coaching job at a high school might view the opportunity to earn an extra $2,500 favorably. A high school coach with no out-of-school plans might really appreciate the opportunity to continue coaching during the summer months while earning a few bucks to fund some vacation plans. There may be restrictions against such a coach working with any kids from his or her own high school during the period after school begins until the spring sports season. You've got to check and make sure because not only can the coach be penalized, but also the kid can be subject to certain prohibitions.
So that's where we stand with our expectations for how much we can pay a coach, what it will cost us, and the type of person who might consider taking the job. Now we need to form realistic expectations of what it means to hire a coach.
First of all, it is entirely possible that 90% of the people we might consider hiring as a coach are inferior to our existing parent-coach. That depends on how knowledgeable the parent is. I have observed a number of parent coaches who, if they chose to, would be extremely successful college coaches, perhaps even at Div I. I can think of several professional skills coaches giving private lessons who got their starts working with their own daughters. There is not a way to say that any professional team coach is always going to be better than a parent coach. But there are differences to the team dynamic when an "outsider" is making the critical decisions like who is going to play what and when.
I'm going to share with you the thoughts of Joe who has been down this road before with his daughter who is currently playing very high level ball. I am using Joe's thoughts because I want you to know that other folks have faced this already and while everyone's experiences will not be identical, I prefer to use other's thoughts in certain circumstances. In Joe's words:
"The girls knew this person was impartial and that made it an even playing field in their minds. We had the same group of girls together for two years - no cliques. They got along extremely well and, while that might just be good parenting or outright luck, I think it had something to do with the coaching. Second, we had a female coach and that was a great experience for our girls. They connected with our coach and could relate to her differently than a male/father. Our non-parent coach wasn't a great coach - she had virtually no coaching experience and, while she did a pretty good job overall, there were times when I thought "what is she doing??"
In addition to these thoughts, Joe also notes:
"We (the GMs - heads of the parent committee) took responsibility for schedules, the calendar, website, overall communication - especially with parents. It was expected that parents would come to us with issues, players would go to the coach. And we found that we had very few complaints regarding playing time, etc. When the parent/coach is taken out of the equation, there was very little room for excuses. Our philosophy was "playing time is earned, not given" and that determination was made by the coach. The GMs went to great lengths to stay out of and away from any on-field decisions. One of the side benefits was that we were unique in our area and that has attracted more and more talented players to our team."
So, that's my post for the day. I do not believe I've gone very deeply into the issue of having a paid coach for a girls travel softball team. In my area, they are not commonly seen. There are advantages and disadvantages, the primary one being cost. But I thought I'd at least begin the discussion of this issue with some thoughts about how one would go about analyzing the possibility of hiring a coach. I look forward to your comments, experiences and suggestions regarding this post but please don't merely send me stories about your experiences with daddy and mommy coaches.Labels: coaching, parents, playing time, youth tournament teams
Permanent Link: Crossroads
Something Freakish
by Dave
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Something freakish happened at the Olympics. There have been plenty of freakish "things" at this year's Olympics. Of course there's the Freakish Chinese government with its centrally planned, highly disciplined and choreographed air pollution. Too bad the authoritarian government didn't will away water pollution as well but that doesn't show up on aerial photographs of the venues. Speaking of water, you've got to admit that US swimmer Michael Phelps is a bit freakish. The 8 golds for a single Olympics are freakish in and of themselves. The 14 overall career Golds are perhaps more freakish. Then there's the likely event that his Olympic career is not over yet. He may add to his career total at the next games! That's pretty freaky. But the 12,000 calories per day is so far off the freak chart, that it doesn't warrant discussion. Still, this is a softball blog and the freakish thing I saw happened in a softball game.
If you don't have a DVR or, alternately, if you aren't an insomniac, you may not have seen many or any of the Olympic softball games. The way the Americans plowed through the preliminaries was freakish but not unexpected. Some have suggested that this is bad for the game's prospects for inclusion in future games. Perhaps that's so, since nobody in the rest of the world wants to consider putting anything extra into the Olympics which would serve to increase the medal count for good ole USA. But it is way too much to expect a team as talented as this year's squad to do anything less than compete for the gold medal while pretty much trampeling all but the absolute best opponents like Japan. This country dominates softball more than any other sport including men's basketball and swimming.
How about the freakish Jamaican gold medal sprinter Bolt? At 6 foot 5, he is freakishly tall for a sprinter. I watched him run the hundred and he looked like a sixth grader running against the entire third grade. His height was not as freakish as his performance in the hundred meter final. He broke the world record which is always pretty freaky but he did so by besting his own previous mark by 3 tenths of a second. If that's not enough, the previous mark was 2 tenths faster than anyone else has ever run. That puts him a half second ahead of the next fastest human being ever to have walked or run the planet in a less than ten second race. And anyone watching the event should have noticed that he did not appear to be trying! There's an explanation for him not putting out his best effort - he said he wasn't there to break the world record, just to win the gold. But, come on now, it isn't as if this is some sort of new race. Highly trained athletes have been working at setting fast times in the 100 for decades. How can someone step up and run 5+% faster than any other athlete has ever gone before? I believe highly advanced blood tests are called for in this case, not so much to see if he used performance enhancing drugs but more to see if he is, in fact, human!! In my humble opinion, his performance at these games should call into question his precise species. He obviously has some Cheetah blood running through his veins. And, maybe his speed should disqualify him from playing in any future reindeer games. This was the most freakish performance to date in these games but perhaps when he runs the 200 in less than an hour from this writing, he'll best that with another, more freakish accomplishment. Still, as I said, that's not what caught my attention.
If you haven't seen any of the softball medal round, you may want to skip the remainder of this paragraph so I don't spoil the outcome for you. As much as the US dominated preliminary play, the first game of the medal round was quite a bit different. Japanese ace pitcher Ueno held them in check. That could be called freakish by itself but what first strikes me about Ueno is she can throw the ball 70+ mph. The official listing of Ueno says she is 5 feet 8 inches tall. She is not 6 feet or taller. I didn't think it was supposed to be possible for anyone that height to throw that hard. Her speed alone should put her into the books as a freak but her pinpoint accuracy is perhaps even more freakish. Another freak on the softball diamond is American Crystl Bustos. As good as Ueno is, she must have not enjoyed the moment Bustos stepped to the plate in extra-innings. The US had already scored the go-ahead run but Bustos pretty much put the game out of sight when she jacked one out for a 3-run homer. Japan did score one in their half but that was all the offense they could muster. Bustos is a great hitter but that fact gets lost on a freakishly good hitting team. They've hit almost .400 in these games. That's not, however, as freakish as their pitching. The rest of the world is hitting under .050 against US pitching. And it wasn't until the medal round that anyone scored an earned run against them. That results in a freakish ERA but the thing which caught my attention happened in what turned out to be an inconsequential moment.
In the middle of the first medal round game against Japan, Stacey Nuveman came to the plate with a runner on first and one out. Nuveman is a top hitter although she has struggled quite a bit in these games. She was, however, starting to come to life as things began to really matter. She got hits in each of the last two preliminary games she played. She had already gotten a hit off Ueno in the third inning, at the time, just the second one the team had been able to muster. But the freakish thing Nuveman did was ... drumroll ... she laid down a perfect sacrifice bunt!
The bunt didn't matter as Jung struck out looking to record the third out but Nuveman's bunt could have changed the outcome of the game. I thought big, strong girls weren't supposed to be able to bunt. I've heard many of you out there tell me time and time again that you don't want your real hitters bunting. Nuveman is one of the top hitters to have ever played the game.
Nuveman finished her NCAA career with four career records: home runs (90), RBI (299), slugging percentage (.945), and walks (240). Her on-base percentage was around .600. Her international career is almost as good as her college one. In 2004, she hit over .300 in the Athens Olympics. In 2005, she hit over .400 at the World Cup. In 2006, she hit the home run which resulted in the eventual winning run in the World Cup championship game against Japan. If Stacey feels obligated to learn to bunt, everyone should!
Many folks I know have said that they'd prefer girls just hit. Many folks I have come into contact with have argued over and over again that they don't want girls waisting time learning to bunt when they can hit .500 or get an extra-base-hit in a quarter of their at-bats. There seems to be an aversion to ... sneer ... small-ball. I've discussed this issue while watching pretty high level high school and 18U games. I've dealt with it in discussions with parents during 10U, 12U, even 14U seasons. I've seen huge arguments break out because some big strong kid was told to bunt in the second to last inning of a 0-0 game. I've seen entire teams come apart over precisely this issue. It truly is a shame.
The fact is, at some time or another, every kid who has ever played the game of softball is going to come face to face with a situation in which bunting is not only the best play but really the only reasonable one. I don't particularly care if the girl in question is hitting .500 or .050. I don't care if she or her parents see her as a homerun hitter. I don't care much if she cannot run to first in under 3 days, let alone 3 seconds. Every kid who steps foot into a batter's box must learn how to bunt. It's as fundamental to the game as, well, bunt defense. It's as fundamental to the game as throwing, fielding a grounder or pop-up, or learning to swing the bat. I can't say it enough so I'll repeat myself. Every softballer must learn to bunt.
In order to fully understand this, let's look at a game scenario. There is one out in the sixth inning of a nothing-nothing game. The number three hitter has just walked. The hard-hitting, high average clean-up hitter is stepping up to the plate. But she looked really bad her last at-bat, striking out swinging on three pitches. The number five hitter drilled a double to right center, only to be left at second when the next two hitters struck out swinging. The opposing pitcher is obviously very good - only the number five has looked decent against her. What are you going to do? Let your number four swing away and possibly leave the runner at first with two outs? No, you must bunt and at least give the number five a chance to bring her home. If the other team walks her, then so be it. You can't control that. For now, you must set the stage for scoring a run.
Let's say a kid hits .500 with extra-base-hits making up half her successful at-bats. There is a 50-50 chance she'll get a hit in any particular circumstance. And there's a 25% chance she'll hit a double or better. These odds obviously vary depending upon who she is facing. But a well-prepared bunter should be able to get one down 75% of the time in a sacrifice situation. That's a higher percentage bet, particularly with no outs. You just can't afford to pass it up.
OK, I'm done amusing and proseltyzing you. Please teach your kids to bunt. It is a necessary, fundamental softball skill. If the one time homerun record holder can do this proficiently, there is absolutely no valid excuse for any softballer to not learn how to bunt.Labels: Bunt, coaching
Permanent Link: Something Freakish
Dad, Don't Throw Batting Practice!
by Dave
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
I was horrified as I turned to pick a ball out of the bucket and caught a glimpse of one of the most horrendous sights in girls youth fastpitch softball. I stood up to take a good look. Across the field complex, in the batting cages, was a father throwing batting practice to my precious daughter ... overhand.
I dropped the bat and ball I was holding to hit grounders to our infielders and raced the 100 feet towards the batting cages. I felt blood swell my brain and my life flash before me as I experienced one of those dream sequences you get where you are being chased by the beast and cannot seem to make your feet move. I tried to scream out and make them stop it. I opened my mouth but everything inside was so dry and stuck together - I was dehydrated from running defensive drills - that I couldn't make my parched throat say anything, let alone yell across the complex. I felt stabbing pain in my chest, presumably from the heart attack I was either about to or already experiencing.
As I failed to find my voice, I thought I heard something. It sounded like my darling daughter's voice. It was almost a whisper. I thought I heard her call to me, "dad. Dad! DAD!!" I knew she had either seen me and was trying to put a stop to the embarrassing spectacle of me running all out across the softball complex, or she was crying out for help and unable to utter "make him stop." The thought occurred to me that perhaps she wasn't calling out to me with her voice. Maybe I was experiencing ESP and my daughter was willing me to do something, do anything, to stop this father from pitching overhand to her. I continued running despite my chest pounding but I still could not make my feet go.
Everything was moving in slow motion the way it sometimes does in highly stressful situations. I felt as if I was running very slowly but maybe this was just my stress response. Maybe I was actually running faster than I ever had before. Maybe everything had slowed as adrenaline kicked in to help me deal with this life or death situation. Come to think of it, the overhand pitch motion appeared to my eyes to be awkwardly slow. And the pitches came in as if they were Bugs Bunny change-ups. I pressed on knowing that everything was slow motion because my body was reacting to the stress I felt.
Sweat dripped down my forehead and onto my nose. It created a terrible itching sensation which I felt I had to attend to immediately. I reached up to wipe the sweat from my face and touched .... a finger? I felt my eyes burn as I realized they were closed and struggled to open them. There before my eyes was my daughter poking her finger into my chest and tapping my nose, trying to wake me up. I had fallen asleep while watching a taped USA softball game and she needed to get me up because it was time to go to practice.
I shook the sleep from my body and brain and grabbed my daughter in a tight embrace. I was almost crying as I told her, "Oh thank God you're OK. I was so afraid. Thank God it was only a dream, uh, nightmare. Everything is OK now. You're alright."
My daughter didn't talk to me for the rest of that day. She made sure to keep her distance from her weirdo, loser father. She was probably wondering what the heck was wrong with me. So I guess I better explain it here.
In real life I have had to put a stop to a well meaning father throwing batting practice on several occassions. I have even found it necessary to stop a father from throwing said batting practice overhand. I try to addresss these situations in as politically adept a manner possible. But sometimes that's just not possible. And other times, the girls themselves take matters into their own hands.
Once I watched an extremely well meaning father take over batting practice. He watched as another father soft-tossed to hitter after hitter. Then, when his daughter came to the plate, he exclaimed, "Let me take over the pitching duties. I know soft-toss is OK but I want to fire a few fast ones at her." The other father willingly turned over the bucket of balls and left the field to find some liquids with which to replenish his body. The father of the girl at bat stepped in and proceeded to station himself 40 feet from the plate and try to windmill a few.
The first pitch would have read about 40 on the radar gun but it was way high. The next one saw a drop in speed from the father's now injured arm down to 35 or so. I suggested he move in a bit closer and throw from say 35. He did and this time he grooved one at his new top speed of 35. His daughter ripped it while keeping her hands back quite a bit longer than she would otherwise have done. She hadn't seen pitching this slow since 10U, 2 years before. She drilled the pitch right back at him, nearly hitting him square in the face. He moved back to 40 and continued pitching.
His daughter sometimes struggled to slow her bat down enough to meet the ball which was now probably coming in around 30, slower than any change-up she was likely to face ever again in her life. The father got upset and gave her advice. She tried again and hit one without any real authority. He gave more advice. She got mad and just about said, "shut up and pitch." He threw some more. She hit a few, missed a few but was always out in front of it. He corrected her and she found her opportunity to get him off the field. She said, "Can't you throw it any harder? This isn't doing me any good!" The father shrugged this off and then finally gave up when his energy level dropped off and he, too, needed to grab some water.
On another occassion with a different team, I observed a father throw some extremely slow pitches to 14 year olds. The girls mad faces and then told him "these are way too slow." He tried to throw harder and then realizing he wasn't capable of doing the job, he found another way. He said, "You want fast pitching - hit this." He began trying to rekindle his old baseball fastball and use that to shut these little whipper-snappers up. Of course he injured his shoulder and had to stop but he must have thrown 50 overhand pitches to the thoroughly confused girls by then. I, seeing my opportunity, walked onto the field and suggested that he needed his shoulder for work and he should, therefore, stop trying to pitch after the initial injury.
Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that having girls see too much overhand pitching is not a good idea. We were indoors from January through March. Our first tournament was early in April. I was not a coach on this particular 12U team but I went to almost every practice to watch.
The indoor hitting sessions were conducted at a Frozen Ropes franchise. Frozen Ropes is a nicely designed place with loads of equipment and lots of kids around taking hitting, pitching, and other lessons. They do all sorts of agility training and other things relevant to the diamond sports. But it is undeniably geared towards baseball as opposed to softball. There were ten hitting tunnels at this facility, each with its own pitching machine (maybe Iron Mikes?).
The pitching machines were all the overhand variety but they put us down on the end where they had a Jugs machine which is suitable for softball as it can be set up to simulate a pitch from a low release point. I should say that the overhand machine we were using was set up presumably for softball since it was using larger balls than the other baseball machines. Still, it threw overhand.
This would not have been a huge deal since we had use of the Jugs machine but at a point halfway through our reserved time slot, sometime in mid-February, the Jugs machine broke and they never bothered to fix it. We were stuck using the overhand pitching machine. Our girls did rather well even when we had the guy on duty turn up the speed. Actually, I;d have to say that our girls were crushing the ball towards the end of our training season. We were looking forwards to a great season with tons of offense.
As winter turned to spring, we were unabel to go outdoors thanks to the seasonal rains. Thank goodness the Frozen Ropes place, which still had not fixed the Jugs machine, was available so we held a few in-door hitting sessions to keep in shape and maintain our storng offensive skills.
Finally the rains let up enough to play outdoors but it was already time for our first tournament. We went into our first game with loads of winter-induced confidence. And ... we struggled with the bat. Our girls swung and missed many times. About the only offense we were able to generate that first game came from small ball. That was against a middle to low caliber pitcher. The second game was an entirely different matter.
In the second game, we faced one of the better 12U pitchers around. She threw hard, mixed speed and movement, and hit her spots. If it wasnt for an error, a hit batesman, and a questionable walk, we wouldn't have had any baserunners at all. Everyone on our side was completely befuddled with our lack of offense.
As the outdoor practice and tournament season wore on, our hitting prowess returned to at least a semblance of its former self. By mid season, girls made contact at least as well as we had expected them to earlier in the year. A few folks wondered aloud how it was that we came out of the winter season in such bad shape. "Why couldn't we hit like this in April?" Someone suggested that maybe all that expensive off-season hitting was a waste of time. Someone suggested that hiting off machines maybe isn't such a good idea. Nobody ever uttered anything about the fact that the machine we used was an overhand, baseball machine regardless of the size of balls it threw.
Over the past couple of years, I have discussed the issue of a girl mo | |
