| 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 |
| • |
August 31, 2008 |
| • |
September 07, 2008 |
| • |
September 14, 2008 |
| • |
September 21, 2008 |
| • |
September 28, 2008 |
| • |
October 05, 2008 |
| • |
October 12, 2008 |
| • |
October 19, 2008 |
| • |
October 26, 2008 |
| • |
November 02, 2008 |
| • |
November 09, 2008 |
| • |
November 16, 2008 |
| • |
November 30, 2008 |
| • |
December 07, 2008 |
| • |
December 21, 2008 |
| • |
December 28, 2008 |
| • |
February 15, 2009 |
| • |
February 22, 2009 |
| • |
April 12, 2009 |
| • |
April 19, 2009 |
| • |
April 26, 2009 |
| • |
May 03, 2009 |
| • |
May 10, 2009 |
| • |
May 17, 2009 |
| • |
May 24, 2009 |
| • |
May 31, 2009 |
| • |
June 07, 2009 |
| • |
June 14, 2009 |
| • |
June 21, 2009 |
| • |
July 05, 2009 |
| • |
July 12, 2009 |
| • |
July 19, 2009 |
| • |
August 02, 2009 |
| • |
August 30, 2009 |
| • |
September 06, 2009 |
| • |
September 20, 2009 |
| • |
October 04, 2009 |
| • |
October 11, 2009 |
| • |
October 18, 2009 |
| • |
November 08, 2009 |
| • |
November 15, 2009 |
|
|
| SOFTBALL LINKS |
|
|
|
California Dreamin
by Dave
Monday, November 09, 2009
I'm not really sure what I expected when we recently made our way across the country so that my daughter could guest pitch with a Gold team at a showcase in California. For my daughter, I wanted her to dip her toes into the vast ocean of high level softball as well as the relatively icy Pacific. For myself, I wanted to compare the OC Batbusters Early Thanksgiving college showcase tournament with others I have seen. In the end, I suppose we could have been anywhere in the country doing the same thing. She would have experienced about the same level of play. I most likely would have learned the same lessons. Yet, it was somehow better that this was in California, the epicenter of fastpitch softball on planet Earth.
For my daughter, the experience was invaluable. She is a high school freshman and the team for which she played was a couple sophomores, mostly juniors and one or two seniors. She knew one of the girls on the team and had played in years past against a few of the others. But she felt really alone for the most part. That is an experience in itself but she's been on enough teams made up of strangers to overcome any anxiety caused by the situation.
My daughter has pitched against high schoolers here and there for several years, since she was 12. So the idea of pitching against high schoolers was not particularly intimidating per se. But these hitters, these teams were some of the best in the country. There were serious college coaches coming to keep tabs on many of these kids. Some will undoubtedly play for some of the top 50 D-1 teams in the country. Now that should intimidate anyone heading into the circle. But she survived despite making a bad pitch or two. Her very first pitch was met with a determined swing that drove the ball sharply into left center for a clean single. Her second pitch was swatted to the left side of the infield and played smartly into a 6- (or 5-) 4-3 double play by a teammate at 2B whose college scholarship is signed and sealed. The next batter popped out or grounded one back to her. Inhale deeply!
In my daughter's second inning of work, she was much more relaxed. She walked a kid after recording one out and then got the next two without much happening. Her first GOLD outing was over with no runs allowed. She was a much more confident kid. I won't bore you with the details of her entire showcase pitching experience but I do want to share one little piece of it with you before getting to the heart of what I really have to say today. In her second outing, she retired the first 3 batters she faced and then got up 0-2 on the next hitter. She threw a pitch that was fouled off and then tried to get the kid on a drop curve. That was her first mistake pitch! I do not believe they have yet found the ball. The last I saw of it, it was going over the fence about a millisecond after it came out of my daughter's hand and caught the fat part of the plate about 6 inches above where it should have been.
That's what happens at these kinds of tournaments. A pitcher who has never given up a homerun before (my daughter has - that is not a new experience for her), can make one mistake and only watch helplessly as it clears the fence. There are often 9 good hitters arrayed against you at this level. I have heard the various pitching coaches talk about working lineups and throwing certain pitches to the 3, 4, and 5 hitters while going right after the 7 and 8, etc. You cannot do that when you are a rookie playing showcase ball against Gold teams. The guy with the book might just as well say "this is their number 4 hitter" before each and every kid comes to the plate.
I don't think my kid was mentally prepared for the speed of the players at this level. That is a difficult adjustment to make. I did tell her that this would be the case but it is difficult for anyone to expect speed to that degree. You have to experience it for yourself. When a ball was hit back to my kid and it bounced off her shin, she hustled to pick it up and make a throw to first but I think the kid beat it, though the ump exclaimed "out." She did not have the same degree of sense of urgency which the other kids who have previously played this level had. My hope is that she now knows what I meant when I said the kids are faster.
But enough of my daughter's experience. I can't speak for her. What I can tell you is my experiences were many and varied.
First of all, the reason to play showcase ball is not really to compete at the highest level. This is the business side of the equation and the business is college recruiting. There is competition to be sure but there is no tournament winner or loser. There was no bracket play, just pool games. And a team's result and record do not count nearly as much for anything as do the individual players' exposure to college coaches. The results of game play are more about team pride and, I suppose, about who does and does not get to play on premier fields in future events.
As I said earlier, my kid is but a freshman and we weren't very much concerned that she get tremendous college exposure. We understand how the process works. But all we were after was an opportunity to dip her feet into this level of play and see how she likes it. Not everybody who gets involved with Gold or showcase ball gets such an opportunity to test the waters. We were very fortunate to have the chance.
As we were planning to fly out to CA, we decided that we should fake it until we make it - go ahead and contact college coaches to see if any would come to watch her play. I expect that not everyone understands this so I'll go ahead and explain. When one seeks out college exposure, it is not enough to merely play or play well at some recruiting venue. College coaches do not roam these things looking to cold prospect. They don't watch a game, pick out the one or two or three best players in it and then contact them to offer full rides plus meals, dry cleaning and a car, if those players will deign to come to their institutions. Generally the way it works is a kid will 1) register with the NCAA clearing house, join a team that plays important showcases, sign up for NFCA recru8itment camps or some such, pick out a number of schools to target, fill out prospective athlete recruit questionnaires, make some sort of contact with the softball coach, and keep them apprised of any big tournaments they are playing. This is done with an eye towards getting the coaches' attention, making a favorable impression and hopefully being "followed" by that coach for a while afterwards. I've been told that many coaches will follow a kid for a year or two before making up their minds.
I have also been told that coaches will take a look at any unsigned seniors briefly, are really interested in any juniors they have been following, and will pay a good deal of attention to sophomores from whom they may find the new talent to follow over the next year. They are not particularly interested in freshman unless those freshman happen to be six feet two 70 mph throwers with great movement and impeccable command. They would also be interested in freshman who hit numerous homeruns or demonstrate gold glove level defensive skills. But I have overheard a college coach complain about some 8th or 9th grader being too good for her program because everyone else at bigger programs is likely to grab her too.
So we sent out e-mails to about 4 coaches expecting about a normal response rate - 0%. Typically, you need to send out dozens of contacts to get a few responses. And we went to our first game looking to see where coaches were from and never expecting to see anyone we had contacted. We were shocked speechless when at our first true game, there was one of the coaches we had contacted and he was asking about our daughter by name.
There are a couple lessons in this experience. You need to contact coaches if you are heading down this path. If you didn't know that before, now you do. You should target schools in which you are really interested - those that offer the sort of academic programs you want. And you should not be completely amazed when they show up to watch you / your kid play. If you are paying thousands of dollars for your kid to play showcases, you should not place all your chips on the remote possibility that some coach from UCLA or Arizona will just happen to walk up to the field as your kid rounds the bases after going yard.
One other thing almost slipped my mind. Our team played a couple "practice games" on the day before the tournament officially opened. Most big showcases afford the opportunity for teams to sign up to request such practice games for a charge which is about what umpires fees would be. If you are in a position to consider going to such a tournament a day early and playing "practice games," do it. Maybe not all the college coaches have arrived by the time you take the field but I can guarantee you some have. We saw as many coaches at our "practice games" as we did the regularly scheduled, official ones. Basically, so-called practice games are actually additional showcase games. If you're gonna throw a couple hundred bucks down for flights plus a hotel room, you would be well advised to go for an extra day just to get a little more exposure.
The most important lessons I took home from the left coast are more general in nature. I have watched elite, Gold level CA teams on numerous occassions before. But I have never seen so many all in one place at one time as I did at the Batbusters showcase. In years past I have had the opportunity to watch the Batbusters, San Diego Renegades, and several other top flight CA teams play showcases. This time I saw countless teams I had never heard of before. That was worth the price of admission (and flights, food, housing, etc.).
The teams we played and those I watched were not the absolute best ones in all of softball in general or CA in particular. They were merely good teams, with tons of experience, and with many bona fide college prospects filling a good portion of their ranks. The level of individuals' play was not anything new to me. I have watched the Shamrocks, great Texas teams, Gold Coast Hurricanes, and many top 10, 20, or 64 ASA Gold teams play in person before. The teams we saw at Batbusters were more of the run-of-the-mill CA showcase teams (if that's not too much of a contradiction in terms for you). They had good players and somewhat weaker ones. They made good plays and bad ones. They all shared certain characteristics which any team at this level shares. It was very interesting and worth going over in some detail.
The pitching was of particular interest to me going in. I was not overly impressed with it. CA pitchers are not mechanically superior to pitchers I have seen from Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, or anywhere else. They do not throw harder. Their pitches do not have more movement on them. But what was evident was pitchers with apparently more experience, better command, and the ability to grind through when they did not seem to have their best stuff. I saw one kid who threw no more than 50. I saw a few harder throwing types but nothing I have not seen elsewhere. I did not see many very good rise ballers. Most pitchers threw a lot of drops and curves. As I said, they had good command of almost eveyrthing they threw, aside from the rises which frequently struck the backstop. Most of all, and I want to give this as much emphasis as possible, almost every CA pitcher I saw had an above average change-up she was not afraid to throw and was able to throw for strikes.
I know I have tried to impress you with this before but I'll say it again at this juncture because I do not believe enough have heard me. The best pitch in softball is the change. I do not believe enough pitchers give it enough of a working in their throwing sessions. The most effective windmill pitchers have good, effective change-ups. If you do not spend as much time working on this pitch as you do on trying to break the 60 mph barrier, you're making a critical mistake. And, finally, if you want to be a successful pitcher, the correct pathway is via command.
You have to throw hard. You have to have good movement. You have to have a good change. And you have to be able to hit spots - spots, not approximate areas.
I have been told that CA pitchers are good because they face CA hitters all the time. I am sure that the pitchers from CA face good hitters a lot. As I said, these pitchers seemed to be more experienced than their age would predict. But I remain unconvinced that they benefit from facing all those great CA hitters because, quite honestly, I did not see many of those.
The hitting was fine but it was not anything which stood out to me. We saw perhaps the same percentage of well hit balls as we have seen in many other venues. There was not a single team which had a monstrous lineup of powerful hitters. A few teams had a couple very good hitters. But the average hitter was an average gold hitter, good but nothing to write home about.
What I did notice was, of the non-slappers, most of the kids hit rotationally. What I mean by "rotationally" is via the Ted Williams style. I d0o not merely mean girls who use their hips by "rotating" them. Almost every decent hitter does that. Ted Williams allowed his hips to fly open early in his swing. So-called "rotational hitters" open their hips before their hands come forwards. They also tend to drop the head of the bat as well as making a couple of other characteristic movements which can be fairly easily traced to Williams. The CA hitters I saw at Batbusters almost all used this technique.
I have to admit a bit of surprise at seeing so many rotationally trained hitters. When, in the past, I have watched top level CA teams play, I certainly have seen some rotational hitters but not a high percentage. There are certain weaknesses to the swing and top level hitters employ parts of it but are not easily characterized as "rotational." At Batbusters, I saw only two kinds of swings, rotational and slapping.
One major difference between the typical rotational hitter I saw in CA was all these girls crowded the plate tightly. I suppose the biggest weakness a rotational hitter has that can be exploiited is down and moving away - like a drop curve or outside drop. The CA hitters cover this weakness by going toes to the line and beyond. This allows them to see an outside, dropping pitch like one over the heart of the plate or even inside. One thing you do not want to do is pitch a rotational hitter inside and low or over the middle of the plate and down. Ofxcourse, this leaves them vulnerable to an inside and up screw but I did not see many, if any, girls who could do this. I have heard Gold coaches speak at length about going high and tight. Now I understand why. If you are going to be effective against these hitters, you must go up and in.
I think I also understand why pitching coaches continue to emphasize the riseball despite the movement down of the strike zone to the solar plexus from its historical upper location at the armpits. It is very difficult to develop a good riseball. Many lay claim to it but few can actually execute on the claim. Among the few who have a legitmate rise, even fewer can throw the thing for a strike under the old strike zone, let alone the new one. But umps at large do not seem to have altered their perceptions to conform with the rule change. Pitches above the plexus and at or slightly above the armpits continue to be called for strikes. If rotational hitters are taking away the down and out, coming up is the next best way to get them out. It is nearly impossible to hit even an average rise ball above the belly button with the bat head held beneath the hands as rotational hitters generally try to do. Rise balls can be dangerous as a bad one travels a great distance. But pitching coaches still consider the pitch to be the Cadillac because it gets rotational hitters out.
Now as a final commentary on CA hitters, oh the slappers, oh the slappers! I saw more well-schooled slappers in CA than I have ever seen in a single place before. In order to discuss this, I mus first define what I mean by a good slapper.
I have seen a high number of kids who hit with a style I would call "tapping" or "tap hitting." &nbsop; This is a technique where a kid who is fast but struggling at the plate, moves to the left side and tries to just tap the ball into play. I see this a lot in high school ball and at the younger ages of travel where the kids are just learning to slap hit. A girl takes up position deep in the box, runs forward as the pitch is delivered and sticks the bat out to make contact as she exits the batter's box. To me, this is not slap hitting. That is why I call it "tap hitting."
Good slappers strike the ball after just a few steps which are taken to build momentum in their run to first. The best ones are quite capable of hitting the ball beyond the infielders. The very best are able to hit the ball to the wall or over it. When good slappers come to the plate, the infield is usually shifted around with one or both middle infielders coming forwards to about the same distance from the plate as the pitcher. There are a variety of other changed fielder alignments so I won;t go into detail. But suffice it to say that if the outfield is pulled in too far, good slappers can take advantage of that but putting the ball over their heads.
The vast majority of CA slappers I saw were very good. In fact, most runs scored as a result of the efforts of the teams' slappers. There were only a handful of well hit balls, hit by non-slap hitters in several games. There were easily double that number in slap-hits of all varieties. What was worse was each team had more than two girls who could slap hit effectively. Some teams had as many as four kids in the lineup who were well-schooled slappers. That's a nightmare for most teams to defense against.
One result of so many teams having so many slappers was that the CA teams seemed much more capable of defending against the slap. Infielders, particularly middle ones, were Kobata quick. They fielded slaps on the ground or bounced and made quick throws to the bases. I'm a huge fan of defensive softball. These infielders played it flawlessly on the slap. My guess is that there are so many slappers in CA that players and teams simply must learn to defense against it. The result is the kind of defensive infield play I saw. And that is the major difference between teams from CA and those from outside the state.
To wrap up, going to CA was a great experience for my kid and for my entire family of softball crazies. We saw some pretty good play and learned a bit about the college recruitment process. We saw some average players including pitchers. We did not see the "great hitters" we expected but the slappers were well above what you see elsewhere. Pitchers had command but were otherwise indistinguishable from their counterparts around the country. Oufielding skills were also about what you see anywhere at this level. The catchers were no more impressive than those from other places. But the rest of the infield was very good. My guess is that when you see slappers all the time, you either learn to deal with them or take up soccer.
As an additional comment, going into CA, we were told that the umpires there favored teams from the state over those from outside it. I saw some pretty bad umpiring. My kid did not experience any sort of negative calls made against her. Actually, to be quite honest, I think she benefitted from most of the bad calls when she was pitching. Some pitches that were clearly out of the zone were called strikes. But I watched a lot of games and I have to say that the theory I heard going in held true. There were bad calls made for and against all teams but the worst ones I witnessed and those which made a difference in the outcome of games were those made against out of state teams. I never saw any game changing calls made against CA teams.
What's worse is there are certain bad calls you have to live with. There is no point to arguing balls and strikes, ever. The ump is not going to change the call and he or she is not going to change the zone. But it is hard to watch one pitch to an area be called a ball and another to the identical place called a strike. There was no strike zone to speak of with most of the CA umps.
Further, while certain plays require a call whether the ump sees it or not, certain others require a call only when the ump sees something affirmatively. For example, if a plate ump blinks on a pitch and does not see it, he still must make a call. He will call ball or strike based on what his gut tells him. Similarly, if there is a play at first, the field ump will call safe or out regardless of whether he is actually convinced one way or the other. He has to make a call. But umps should never make a call on other types of plays unless they see something absolutely. For example, if a runner tags up on a flyball and the ump is not sure he saw her leave the base early, he should not call her out on appeal. That is a seeing sort of call, not a required call where the gut will do. Similarly, an ump should not call a baserunner out for leaving too early unless he actually sees this occur. Also, an ump should not call a base runner out because the base coach touched her unless he actually sees the contact. He cannot think that very possibly these things happened so "I'll go ahead and make the call." He has to actually see the thing happen. In CA, we saw umps make many phantom calls. I say "phantom" because the acts called did not happen. That is rather unforgiveable.
Well that's it. I advocate showcase ball but planes, trains, automobiles, and hotel rooms are expensive. I suppose there are a few other ways to skin the cat of college recruiting but showcases are the best way to make contact and gain a following. CA showcases draw a high number of college coaches as do the NFCA recruitment camps, the Rising Stars stuff in Florida, the tourneys in Colorado, Texas etc. On the other hand, I suppose one's softball experience cannot be complete without hitting CA at this level at least once.Labels: coaching, college, parenting, showcase, Tournaments
Permanent Link: California Dreamin
 
Tough Throws
by Dave
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
There is a TV commercial in which some kid throws a basketball onto the roof of his house, it bounces from there onto a basketball court far away, hits the macadam, and bounces up into the net. That's a tough shot - I would say it should be about a five pointer! The commercial reminds me of a game we used to play called H-O-R-S-E in which one contestant made a basket and all the guys behind him had to make exactly that shot or "get a letter." You would get a letter until you spelled horse at which point you were out of the competition.
If you were a poor basketball player, like I was, you had to come up with creative shots to have any chance of winning. For example, I once went into the bushes, found a beat up football with a leather strip hanging off it, and developed a shot to give me an edge. If I made my shot, the guys after me had to grab the football by the strip hanging off it, hold it with just two fingers, turn their back to the basket from a ridiculously far point, lift their right foot into the air like so, and throw the ball directly over their head without looking at the hoop. Also, hopefully, the shot had to be banked off the backboard!
No, I didn't make that shot. But I made many like it. And that was the only way I would ever win at horse.
So, why the talk about basketball and horse? Well, while creative shots, like mine, in basketball are inadvisable in an actual game, sometimes we have to make odd, difficult throws in a softball game to get an important out.
You know the plays that kill you in fastpitch. There is a grounder between 1B and 2B which is fielded cleanly but which is in the zone at which the fielder is uncertain whether to throw it overhand or toss it underhand. If she throws it overhand a little too hard and a little offline, the 1B will be handcuffed and miss it. If she underhands it, it has to be strong and she has not practiced tossing underhand very much. She quickly decides to throw it underhand and flips it towards first. You watch helplessly as the girl discovers she has a sort of riseball. The ball travels more up than out and gets to your 1B at the apex of its flight, just out of reach of her highest recorded leap. Error! Runner on first.
That's one kind of somewhat routine throw we don't often practice that results in failure to get an important out. Another is a ball into the hole between short and third with a runner moving to third, or perhaps a ball bunted back to the pitcher's right hand side with, again the ITB runner moving to third and an opportunity to end a threat. The SS or P fields the ball cleanly but she is in an awkward position. She either straightens up to make a clean throw that is too late, or she makes an awkward throw that gets by the 3B, allowing the runner to score.
There are all sorts of odd throws possible in softball which often result in bad plays. I just mentioned a couple of them to get you in the right frame of mind. If you think back over the years about blown plays which cost your team, most likely you can come up with dozens of them. I know I can. My guess is that everyone has seen many of the same type over and over again, plus a few nobody else can think of. These kinds of seemingly one-off plays are often the difference between winner and loser in semifinal and championship games and you can prepare your team to make them. You just have to think creatively, as if you were playing basketball horse, and have your players practice making the tough throws.
When we first teach 7, 8, 9 year-olds to throw, we put them in perfect position and teach just the basic, fundamental type of throw. We have them get into a scarecrow-like position, throw over the top, and hit a stationery target. It is an easy drill but one which must be done early on so players develop proper throwing technique without injuring their shoulders and elbows. This represents throwing 101.
Just about everybody does this kind of drill with young players and they should. Then we have them progress to fielding rolled balls, hopping into that perfect position and making the elongated throw to the target. That is 102.
Unfortunately, after that, most kids are left to their own devices until they reach high school at which point the high school coach teaches the outfielders to perform a crow-hop and the infielders to perform a few somewhat more creative throws. The really good players learn more than this at defensive clinics. But, for the most part, nobody gets all the skills they will need in tight games unless they goof around in the yard on their own.
At the typical softball practice, what we see is a bunch of girls standing 15 feet apart, tossing the ball back and forth via overhand wrist snaps. They then move to about 30 feet apart and toss back and forth. Then they move to about 60 feet apart and throw from the perfect position back and forth to each other. Sometimes, coaches have the team long toss from 80- or more feet apart but that's about it.
This goes on for about 15 minutes or so after which there is a round of grounders for the infielders and pop flies for the outfielders. Then we progress to running defensive plays - get the out at first, double play, throw to third, first and third situations, outfield cutoffs, bunts, etc. with a full defensive alignment. After that, perhaps some fielders get special drills or we do some kind of complex, but ordinary throwing drills. Then we go to hitting. Often we run some complex plays, like the kind which require the coach invoking a command from the dugout. But we never teach or drill the oddball throws.
Coaches can do more of a service for their teams by bringing in more creative throws to their drills. The kinds of oddball throws a player may find herself making without ever practicing include those which require underhand or backhand motions, ones in which there is a decision to make regarding whether to throw overhand or underhand, off balance throws, those from the ground, some with your back turned to the target, etc. I think we do have our middle infielders practice the obvious underhand tosses when we work double plays. But, for example, we don't work our corner infielders or pitchers enough on these and other oddball throws. We accidentally have outfielders practice making throws which begin with their backs turned to the target and we teach this to routine cutoffs like the middle infielders. But we leave out other players. We don't teach enough technique. And we don't have them work these kinds of throws enough to make them as routine as they should be.
For beginners, I think every kid who walks onto a softball field ought to practice underhand tosses. Sure the pitchers do their underhand wrist snaps and can make routine underhand throws since that is part of their trade, more or less. But all your infielders ought to be able to throw a ball accurately underhand. They should "go to the same school" as your pitchers by practicing wrist snaps from 15 feet and even perform underhand throws from further than that. The more they do of these, the better they will become at them and the more likely they will be to get routine outs from close distance to the target base.
To take it a step further, infielders ought to be able to lead a player covering a base, not merely be able to hit a stationery target. I hope that you work on this with overhand throws already, as when the 2B is covering second on a ball hit to 3B. If you don't, you should. The technique is similar with underhand throws. The throwing fielder must aim over the base - throw to the base not the player - and lead them to the target. Say the ball is hit to the 1B and she is tossing the ball to the 2B covering first. She wants the ball to get there right as the 2B does, and have it be on the infield side of the bag but not make the 2B stop or reach for it. Presumably, your SS already can perform this throw to the 2B covering second and, again, the technique is similar but you need to work it enough so that it is routine.
Similarly, the SS should be able to toss the ball to the 3B covering third and vice versa. Also, the 2B presumably can make the non-overhand throw to the SS covering second. These involve backhand throws in which the elbow leads, the ball is snapped from the elbow, and the body follows the path of the ball towards the target. Again, leading the player to the base is necessary som practicing this is pretty much mandatory.
When I think of the types of plays which good teams make, these often involve the SS moving to her right and getting the lead runner who was forced or mistakenly went to third. She doesn't have the time to stop, hop into position and make a perfect overhand throw. But she composes herself enough to get the ball out of her glove and shuffles the ball backhand to the 3B just as she gets to the bag to cover and gets the force or allows for a good tag play.
Another such play involves the pitcher fielding a slap hit grounder to her left. She is off balance but fields the ball cleanly as the runner blazes past her. She straightens up and makes a good throw but the runner is safe. If she had been able to make that backhand throw while still stumbling, she would have gotten her.
How about this one? The opponent has a fast runner on third and another runner on first with just one out. There's no way you can get the out at home on a routine grounder and you can't pull your infield in because the big, strong, but slow of foot, slugger is up. You don't want to give up a run but you really don't want a big inning to get started so you've got your middle infielders at normal depth and your corners in line with their bags. Your pitcher works outside and low with her drop or dropcurve and induces a routine grounder to the 2B. She fields it cleanly in that no woman-s land where she is not sure whether to throw it overhand or shuffle it to the SS. She wheels and throws over second but because she had to wheel into throwing position, she pulls the throw off the bag! The SS catches the throw but falls in the process of making the play. You get one out but the run scores and you've still got a runner on base with the team's other slugger coming to the plate. If, instead, she were a skilled backhand thrower, she might have led the SS over the bag with a sharp throw allowing her to get two and kill the threat. But you've got to teach that technique and practice a lot to get really good at it.
How about those squeeze plays in which the batter bunts the ball a little hard right at the pitcher who bends down to grab it and then needs to make the throw home in a real hurry? If she is a righty and has to go left to make the play (or a lefty who has to go right to field the ball), the throw is either going to be a late overhand one or a quick backhand shuffle.
In short, your infielders, including pitchers must practice their underhand throws as well as the backhand variety. They must learn to make these kinds of throws quickly and accurately. They must learn to lead other fielders to the bases. Practice this and they'll be good at it. Fail to practice it and, I guess you can wait to see the results.
Not for nothin' but, it may not be a bad idea to teach some of these techniques to your outfielders too. The play which sticks in my mind is one of those humpback liners directly over second. Our CF plays shallow. She came charging in and for a moment it looked like she'd make the catch. But she couldn't get there in time and had to short hop it while stumbling to stay on her feet. I suppose she could have dove but she didn't. The runner from first held up but then she was charging towards the bag. The CF still had the opportunity to get her but she was in between the overhand and underhand throw. She decided to underhand it but she was not a practiced underhand thrower and tossed the ball over the SS's head. The same thing once happened on a ball hit to left with runners on first and second. We could have had important outs but our outfielders are not skilled underhand throwers. You should rectify this by teaching technique and practicing it.
Moving back to young kids again, when we teach throwing and then insert the routine grounder, we have kids hop into good throwing posture, so-called scarecrow position, look over their front shoulder at the target, use their glove as a sort of gunsight, and then make the throw. Just about every good 10U rec player does this and looks good in the process. Their shoulders and elbows are protected by this practice and we should teach it that way, early on. It is slow but effective. But that's not the real world of fast, fastpitch softball.
In the real world, you don't have time for perfect throwing technique. In the real world, softball infielders pretty much throw with a similar technique as baseball catchers use. They pull the ball to their ear or near it, throw the elbow forward, and snap the throw. If they are good infielders, they pre-position their bodies so they have proper posture the way a good shortstop fields the ball while almost simultaneously in the process of turning her body to point the glove hand shoulder at her target. They do not field the ball, pull it to their waist, hop into scarecrow position and then throw from perfect position.
If you've ever been in a Howard Kobata clinic, this and other speed skills are the primary focus. Kobata wants infielders to use their body's momentum attained in the act of fielding the ball to add force to the throw without stopping and attaining perfect body position. This is achieved through working on proper footwork. Kobata's methods are very effective for teaching infielders to get outs quickly.
Kobata takes it a few steps further and works those throws in which the fielder is perhaps on the wrong foot or otherwise unable to attain proper posture. He has them throw balls with both the right and left foot forwards. Just as an NFL quarterback must learn to throw off both feet, if he is to be successful, a softball player must also learn to be accurate and reasonably strong when making throws with the off foot forwards. Infielders often have little time to make throws after making good plays on batted balls. They cannot afford to lose the tenth of a second or more required to gain their proper footing. They have to be able to make the difficult throws from awkward positions and be accurate with those throws.
The 2B who fields the soft grounder straight in front of her as she charges in is often past the point of being able to throw over the top, across her body and still hit the 1B covering the bag. She must practice those side-arm throws needed to make this play. The same is true for other infielders including the pitcher. Obviously, catchers need to be able to make throws from awkward positions. If they never practice these, they never get as good at them as they could be. Practice also teaches them which throws they can make and which ones always end up in the outfield.
The other kinds of difficult throws that are often blown are those in which either the player gets up off the ground or must make a throw to a target located directly in back of her. When players get off the ground, they usually do so in a hurry and they want to make the throw quickly. Back in the ole football days, we used to do a lot of drills which involved falling to the ground, getting back up again, and then running towards the play. I remember thinking they were stupid until one time I was pursuing a play and never saw my teammate on his hands and knees in front of me as I ran full speed. I tripped over him and then rolled naturally into a position from which I got up quickly, continued my pursuit, and eventually brought down the running back. You must practice going to the ground, getting back up again and then making a play.
Just to drive home my point, I suppose I never thought of going down and getting back up again as a "skill" until one day in an elimination game I had a player fall down. Her first reaction upon falling down was to sprawl out like a kid making an angel in the snow. When she started to move again, she realized that she was the only one close enough to make a play on the ball laying nearby. It seemed like it took an eternity for her to get up. By the time she reached the ball, she was completely discombobulated. She followed her awkward moment with a worse throw to an unseen, by me, target. It was a disaster!
Since that day, I have viewed getting up from a fall as a skill. I have watched countless players go to the ground and then take too long to get back up again. At one point I watched a very skilled SS go to the ground to field a ball and get back up again as if she were a big cat chasing dinner. She got the runner out at first as if she had never been on the ground. Sure, she was extremely athletic. But she obviously had performed the move before. She knew how to get up from the ground and make a play. It was not a skill she was born with. Softball players need to acquire this skill wherever they play.
I think we often have outfielders run to retrieve a ball which has struck the fence and bounced back towards or away from them. This is a common drill for the position. They are expected to grab the ball, turn 180 degrees around and hit the cutoff ... always. They practice this and across the broad spectrum of players, are, as a class, pretty good at it. The plays which stick in mind involving a throw directly in back of a player which are frequently blown are those in which an infielder has to go back, retrieve a ball and then make that same kind of throw.
Sometimes a pop-up is just out of reach behind of a middle infielder, or hit behind first or third, and results in an infielder having to sprint back to pick up a ball, turn around and unexpectedly make a throw to a base. This seems, on the surface, simple enough. You just have to run, pick up an unmoving ball and then make a throw. There's no need to drill or practice that! OK. So why are so many of these kinds of plays blown when the infielder makes a bad throw? [; You have to devise drills for infielders to retrieve balls on the ground and make throws accurately to all bases.
Part of me wants to write more about drills you could work into your practice to work on the skills we have discussed. Part of me recognizes that I have already written far too much for a single article. I'll meet you halfway and give you just a little of what you might consider doing in practice.
For starters, after your players have warmed up their arms and maybe done some long tossing, you could work in some simple underhand and/or backhand throwing drills. I suggest having them perform pitcher snaps back and forth for a couple minutes from about 15 feet. Then have them spend a few more minutes throwing underhand from 20 feet apart, then 30. I am not suggesting that they will throw underhand from 30 feet in games but I want them to practice throwing underhand from far apart to improve the skill.
I've "wasted" no more than five minutes of your valuable practice time so far. If you're game to "waste" a few more minutes, put your team in groups of three. Have one player feed balls to a fielder who then tosses underhand to a target player. This should be like my "five ball" drill in which players work on speed throwing but the target player need only be 20-30 feet away from the fielder. The feeder can throw the ball right at the waist of the fielder or she can roll a grounder to her. You rotate the players into each of the three positions: feeder, fielder and target. You can do multiple iterations if you like. But everybody goes at least once and you use 5 balls so they get 5 reps each.
In addition to normal underhand throwing, I suggest a similar regimen for backhand throwing. To save time, you could do regular underhand throwing at Monday's practice and backhand throwing at Wednesday's. After warm-up throwing have them do backhand snaps and then throws. Then maybe do the five ball drill.
In each of these types of instances, it is imperative that coaches observe and correct technique. Don't merely get into the rut of having the girls go out to the outfield and do warm-up throwing then underhand without any coach supervising. The idea is to improve the skill. Supervise and correct!
When you run your infield or full fielding practice, also don't get into ruts about allowing players to do whatever is easy. If a play truly calls for an underhand or backhand throw and the player instead chooses to make a slow, standard play, correct her. Use what happens when running defensive practice to teach when to use these techniques and insist that they do so.
Another kind of drill you can use to work on underhand throwing involves placing cones in a circle with a diameter of about 30 feet or so. Have player stand around this circle and make the particular kind of throws to each other randomly. To make it more interesting, put in a second, third, etc. ball and encourage them to move it quickly. You can have a predetermined order of girl A throwing to girl B but that should not be necessary. And to make it really interesting, have them run slowly around the circle while doing this!
With respect to the other kinds of tough throws I have discussed or those which you can come up with on your own, I think you can develop your own drills fairly easily. The trick is to identify a kind of throw which your team or half the members of your team seem to have trouble performing. Figure out the skill you want them to develop, teach the technique you'd like them to use, and then develop drills to work on the skill. It can seem silly at first. You can get input from the players themselves and let them develop their own drill. But you must teach and supervise the technique. Then you must insist they use it.
I believe that if yuou identify the kinds of plays which your players seem to struggle with or that good teams, but not yours, seem to be able to do routinely, you can identify the tough throws and other skills you want your kids to develop. That is at least part of the beauty of scrimmages and games. You get to see plays which involve things you never have worked on in practices. If the trouble plays recur with any regularlity over your coaching career, they probably involve skills you should work on. Best of luck with this important aspect of the game.Labels: coaching, defense, pre-season preparation, throwing
Permanent Link: Tough Throws
Repeat ... Repeat ... Repeat ... Repeat ...
by Dave
Thursday, September 24, 2009
I saw an e-mail from some coaches to their players the other day which, on the surface, doesn't really contain anything wrong per se but which, after some contemplation, I realized misses the mark by quite a bit. The message said something along the lines of "good players don't need to be told to do something twice. They hear what is told to them and thereafter they do it the right way." The idea of the message was to cause players to take personal responsibility when something they do is corrected. It implores them to take coaches' words to heart and to try harder to incorporate constructive criticism into their games. That is a good thing to tell players. But if you think they're gonna get that message the first time you give it to them, think again, and again, and again ...
Human beings are creatures of habit. Think for a minute about some mundane aspect of your life such as your morning routine or what you typically do after arriving home from school or work. I would be willing to bet that you do things in almost precisely the same order when you get up in the morning at about the same moment each day. I know I do. If my morning hygiene regime is examined, I know that I do things in precisely the same order and that if a stopwatch were to be put on the routine over the course of a month, there probably would be little variance throughout the period.
The phrase "routine will set you free" makes use of the human habit phenomenon in a constructive way. If you use habit to accomplish certain tasks each day, you are freed up to handle non-routine events more easily. If you didn't have habit, the every day things would take you twice as long to finish. If you do not believe that, try mixing up your morning routine or some such pattern and see what happens.
Let's say that you shower, do your hair, dress, eat something for breakfast, drink some coffee, then brush your teeth, etc. Try doing things in a completely different order, within reason. Put that proverbial stopwatch on yourself and see if it takes about the same amount of time to do things in a different order each day or if your normal routine is faster. My guess is the normal routine is very much faster. Worse, I'd be willing to bet that if you do everything in a different order, some of the time, you will forget to do something. Most people function that way.
When I worked an office job, I usually got up at exactly the same moment each day; then got into the shower first; then shaved, brushed my hair; brushed my teeth; got dressed; drank a cup of coffee; pulled out my computer to review news; got up from that at exactly the same moment; packed my bag; got into the car at precisely the same moment; drove to the train station, parked in a spot within 5 spots of where I parked every day in a lot which contained hundreds and hundreds of cars; bought the same newspaper and a cup of coffee from the same guy, walked to almost precisely the same point on the very long train platform, stood next to the same people, and got on the same train at almost the same spot; got off the train at the same location; walked to the same place on the subway platform; jumped on just about the same subway every day; got out at the same spot; walked the same walk; got on the same elevator; and found myself at my desk at about the same time each and every day for something like 12 years. What strikes me in the history of this morning routine is that I often saw the same people on the same train, subway, even elevator. That was true despite some of them coming from New Jersey, others from Connecticut, a few from Pennsylvania, and several from places within New York City or Manhattan itself. That is kind of odd when you think about it. Numerous people waking up at different times in locations far apart, doing essentially the same tasks, taking different means of transportation, and all arriving at the same location at the same moment, over and over again, over years and years.
But enough of the mundane. The point is, people are creatures of habit. Network TV stations work hard to get you to tune in their channel on Sunday night before you go to bed because they know that, on Monday morning, you will turn on the TV and leave whatever channel is on alone. The supermarket business makes trade on understanding people's habits and placing impulse buy items according to that pattern. All of marketing is essentially a human psychology effort and one which makes use of habit perhaps more than anything else.
I heard a softball coach the other day say to his team, "look girls, I am tired of repeating myself over and over again, and not having anyone listen and follow through. I tell you to do it this way and you do it that way once, maybe twice, but then a day or two later, you do it the same way you did it when I corrected you. I'm tired of this. From now on, I want you to listen to me when I correct you and do it the right way thereafter." If you have ever strongly felt this way, I suggest you take a step back and think hard about what coaching entails before moving forward or backing away from the game. Repeating oneself is not only important in coaching, it is the foundation upon which everything else rests.
Let's draw a picture. Lets say you have before you a new team. They can all throw and field OK. They've never really played the game before but they have all the requisite skills. So now, all you need to do is teach them how to react to different things that might happen. You decide the very first thing you want to teach them is bunt defense. You explain to them what each position will do. That takes perhaps 5 minutes. You set them all up in the field, then tap or hit a ball into play a few feet from home and yell, "BUNT." Of course, every girl will do everything exactly as you told them just a few moments ago, won't they? I also suppose that you are now done with ever mentioning bunt defense. They all know what to do and they all practiced it once. If they are real athletes, if they listened to you, if they were paying close attention and took what you said to heart, all of these girls will do everything exactly right on every bunt play they ever face.
OK, so that's an exaggeration. If two days after your single bunt defense practice you were to play a game in which the first batter walked and the second batter bunted, the reality would be somewhat different. The 2B would run headlong into both the SS and CF as all three tried to cover second. The girl fielding the bunt would whip the ball into right because nobody was covering first. The RF, not aware of any particular responsibility on this play, would be busy picking grass out of her fingernails and not see the ball go right past her. The LF would run past the foul line and ask her mother to "bring a bottle of water to the dugout after this inning." The 3B would back up home. And your pitcher would quit the team on the spot, walking off the field because she does not want to spend all that time practicing her pitches just to play with a bunch of losers like the girls on this team.
I don't think I overstate reality on this point. If you want to run a solid bunt defense, you've got to explain it at length, impress everyone of your players with the fact that every position on the field has a specific responsibility, tell them what their responsibilities are, and then run through a typical bunt many, many times. Then at your next practice, you will spend less time explaining the play and more time running through it. You likely will continue to run through bunt defense many more times at every practice for the entire year. And you'll do the same thing again next year with the same group of girls.
Each time you run through bunt defense, you may make little tweaks to speed things up. When you see little mistakes made, you'll correct them. The team will get better and better at this play. But in games, they will make the occasional error on it and then you'll work it some more in practice. That is what softball is all about, repetition of conditioned response.
When a windmill pitcher, catcher or batter takes private lessons to learn the mechanics of her craft, I suppose theoretically, it should take a finite number of lessons before she gets it absolutely right and, thereafter, she should never again need another lesson with respect to the skill. That theory should pan out if the girls taking the lessons are paying attention to their instructors, listening hard and taking the instructions to heart. But if that were the case, private instructors wouldn't be in such high demand. It really is not an issue of girls not paying attention or of perhaps starting them out too young so much as it is a matter of players always needing to be reminded of certain aspects of their mechanics which tend to atrophy over time.
There really are not so many aspects to playing this game that it takes a lifetime to learn them all. There are plenty but it is a finite set. And each skill takes a long time to truly master. If players needed just one iteration of a skill shown the right way and then they had it down pat, it might take about 2 to 3 years and a gifted athlete would be ready to play at world class level. If that theory worked, we wouldn't need coaches to do very much at the highest levels. College and ASA Gold coaches could just get themselves the most skilled and athletic recruits, arrange them on the field of play and simply watch. In case you haven't noticed, that does not happen.
There are probably more coaches kept very busy at the highest levels of the game than anywhere else. Colleges have pitching instructors, catching, infield and outfield coaches, batting instructors, trainers and conditioners, etc. They need these coaches in order to properly prepare athletes who have been playing the game more than 10 years. They have selected and recruited the best athletes their programs can entice and yet they need coaches to train the kids! Why is that?
The other day I was watching a couple coaches in a 14U batting practice. The team was a new one. The coaches had selected the best kids they could draw and put together a team. Now they were a couple weeks into practicing them twice a week. At each practice they spent about half their time on hitting. Each girl would stand in and hit balls pitched to various locations by one coach while another stood and watched their hitting mechanics. These coaches were of the hybrid swing mechanic genre though they were not particularly aware of that fact. The kids they had picked for their team were, of course, the ones who had done the best at tryouts. A large percentage of these kids were rotationally trained.
The coaches liked the way most of the girls turned their hips to drive the ball. They all seemed to do well with pitches inside and in the lower portions of the strike zone. But when the coach threw balls high or on the outside corner, all of these girls would struggle. And they often tried to pull the outside pitches. When this would happen, the coaches would stop the batting practice for a few minutes and show the batters what they were doing wrong. In some cases, they had already told the particular girls to correct their mistake by doing X or Y. But they could not understand why they had told this or that girl to do X and she refused to do it the next time she hit. In one case, a girl was told to do a partuicular thing and she did it fine right away for numerous practice pitches. Later, when she faced live pitching, she reverted back to her errant ways. The coaches were again frustrated.
At this batting practice, one girl would rotate her hips, drop the bat head, and then take what could only be described as a golf swing. The girl had been trained to do this for years because, when she was younger and small for her age, she had trouble generating enough power to hit the ball out of the infield. Now that she was about normal size and of above average strength, she had great difficulty changing her swing mechanics. The coaches told her that any decent pitcher was going to see her swing and know to keep the ball up in the zone to get her out easily. They told her what to do to correct this and she did as they said perhaps once or twice, but she just couldn't repeat it for any length of time. This kid is going to be quite a project for quite a long time.
In addition to problems with habit and learned errors, kids have a lot on their minds. The girl whose swing, throwing, or fielding mechanics (perhaps all three) are being corrected at Wednesday practice also is trying to remember how to conjugate some Spanish verb, how to solve quadratic equations, and / or the order of events in the American Revolution for tests on Thursday and Friday. She is trying to remember if that cute boy likes the Kansas City Chiefs or the Miami Dolphins / the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox. She is focused on what Doris told her about the boy who is going to ask her to Friday night's dance. She is thinking about the fact that her mother told her she must either clean up her room or she has to stay inside all weekend to help with some boring job around the house. She is trying to remember so many things that if you tell her to keep her butt down just once, you would have to be out of your mind to expect her to remember it even though she is perhaps your most focused ballplayer.
I was working with a girl who plays first base for us. She is a good player, quick, athletic. She struggles with hard shots hit to her right. Over two games, the only errors we made in the games were balls hit to her right. She got there too late on both of these plays and the ball careened off her mitt. She is a tall kid and has a tendency to stand too erect. She has, for many years, played from a ready position in which her legs are fairly stiff. What I wanted her to do was get her legs bent with her butt down and her mitt able to touch the ground. Then I wanted her to get on the balls of her feet and be ready to go in either direction very quickly.
I explained what it is I wanted her to do and she made some first efforts at it. I had to explain again and emphasize the getting low aspect because her normal position was so high that her first efforts at getting low were only about half of what I envisioned. Eventually, with some prodding, I got her low enough. We went through maybe ten grounders after that. The next practice, she was back in her normal ready position. I could have said, "I'm tired of repeating myself ..." but I didn't. Instead, I said, "remember, you gotta get low." And she went to the halfway point again so I said, "no, lower." I expect I'll be saying this same thing to this same girl until the end of the year. At some point, maybe it will click in her. Then again, it might not!
I remember a particular SS I worked with for a full year. She had a bad tendency to field everything with one hand which slowed her down. She also tended to field sideways instead of with her shoulders square. Everything else was fine but this one-handed tendency really killed her. I had her for a year and I thought we had tamed the thing. But that was several years ago and I had occasion to see her recently. She is doing a pretty good job in LF but she almost never plays SS anymore. Her coaches picked a girl to play that critical position who has better habits and makes fewer errors. I suppose that puts the truth in the original statement I discussed above, "good players don't need to be told to do something twice. They hear what is told to them and thereafter they do it the right way."
From a personnel point of view, coaches do want the kid who is "easiest to coach" playing the most critical positions. That kid is the one who does not need to be reminded to use two hands, to keep her shoulders square, to bend her knees for the ready position, to not drop the bat head, to rotate her hips, to cover the outside corner, to do this or that to hit against high pitches, where to go on bunt coverage, to block balls in the dirt and how to do that correctly, etc. Coaches are going to pick the kids who listen to them, take constructive criticism to heart and otherwise not make them repeat themselves too much. But coaches themselves should never tire of having to repeat themselves. This game is about repetition. It requires TIRELESS repition of mechanics, plays, and verbal advice. Don't get tired of repeating yourself, just do it. Repeat ... Repeat ... Repeat ... Repeat ... Repeat ...Labels: coaching, Training, work ethic
Permanent Link: Repeat ... Repeat ... Repeat ... Repeat ...
Pitching Foundation
by Dave
Thursday, September 10, 2009
 In order to build a house, you've got to start with a foundation. OK, so we're not trying to build a house. We're trying to build a windmill. Take a look at the picture. Now that's a windmill with a foundation! Sure, it is obviously quite an old windmill. The modern ones are built with a much more slim look. But the modern versions are built with very sturdy materials and cost quite a bit. Besides I'm not convinced these newer windmills will stand the test of time. And that's what we're after today, a windmill that will stand the test of time.
I could have called this piece pitching fundamentals but everybody shies away from anything called "fundamentals." Similarly, I could have titled it something "beginner." But some would jump over this and seek out something better or more relevant to their situation. We, as a society or culture, have an aversion to anything called fundamental. We want to jump ahead to the intermediate level of everything. We're looking for nuance, tips and tricks, shortcuts. That is not a formula for success with anything complex. Windmill pitching is complex.
Another reason why readers of this blog might look beyond anything fundamental or for beginners is they already pay a coach for lessons and the fundamentals are the coach's responsibility. I've got absolutely nothing against pitching coaches. To me, they are critical. I'm not prepared to make myself into the expert the way Mr. Tincher did. I doubt most of you are either.
Pitching coaches are great but let's not forget that they are selling a product. The pitch9ing coach is putting out the product he believes you are willing to buy. If the coach has you as a client and you are less interested in fundamentals than say the curve ball or making your daughter into a functional pitcher today, that is what he or she is going to sell you. If the pitching coach does not offer what his or her clients want, there will not be sufficient customers to continue the practice. So, while most pitching coaches do teach fundamentals, they need to move things forward to a level at which you are willing to pay for their expertise pretty quickly. I'm going to get into the fundamentals in a moment but before I do, I want to explain a little more deeply why pitching coaches often do not address them and why parents of pitchers are often not only none the wiser for it but often the actual cause.
The typical kid who first steps into pitching lessons is a rec pitcher, say about 8 to 11 years old. The parent of the pitcher wants their kid to be a functional pitcher, one who does not get pulled in the first inning for walking in 3 runs before getting an out. They want their daughter to "just throw strikes." They are less interested in the kid building a foundation that will last into high school than they are avoiding personal embarrassment this Saturday. They are less interested in a proper wrist snap or good body posture than they are having their kid throw those strikes. They are less interested in her starting with two feet on the rubber than they are with her getting outs. They are less interested in avoiding a crow hop or leap than they are in her speed. They are less interested in her having an effective change-up than they are with her learning to throw that curve or drop.
If you want to pitch past 10U, you've got to learn some basics and learn them well. I have seen too many pitchers who have a defective wrist snap, who bend over to deliver that strike, who walk into their pitches or don't even push off the rubber, elt alone drag away from it, who do not develop pitches in the right order or who rely too much on a particular pitch because they can throw it for a strike and are getting batters out. The result is often a pitcher who will get hit hard at the next level, up an age group or over to a higher level of travel. The result is often a pitcher will be frustrated in the future and perhaps give it up before her time is due.
To begin into the foundations that every pitcher ought to work on, I see a couple items which should be given more attention than perhaps most people are willing to give. When coaches build pitchers from the ground up, they usually begin with the release point and work backwards. The release point follows the wrist snap so that's where we'll start. Before the wrist snap is a good "perfect" circle. Before that is a leg drive and drag from the rubber, followed by good body posture. And before that is two, yes two, feet on the rubber or pitcher's plate.
Having a good wrist snap is absolutely critical. Some pitchers develop lazy wrists which results in a rollover or a straight-wrist release. They put a cut on the ball one way or the other. This often gets missed because they still throw the ball hard and because they get baby hooks or cuts on their pitches, batters miss the ball.
I remember seeing a couple 12 year old pitchers at different times who had cuts on their fastballs. They got batters out. But they didn't nearly get the speed they might have on their pitches and, in fact, they had less movement than they should have on their fastballs as they got older. Eventually they became mediocre pitchers or gave it up altogether. A "true" wrist snap is 12 to 6 on the clock. There is no such thing as perfection in any human endeavor. If there were, our eyes couldn't tell us anyway because they are not that keen. But a ball which rotates nearly perfectly is what we're after. If the catcher sees any sort of dot or wobble in the pitch, the wrist snap has not been as near to perfect as it should be.
When a pitcher throws a very good wrist snap, the ball rotates rapidly. This causes a couple things to happen. First off, a rapidly rotation ball is harder for a batter to vector. batters' eyes put together the meeting point of bat and ball in subliminal ways and apparent rotation factors into the hitter's subconscious mental equation. A rapidly rotating ball tells the eyes something about its expected speed. Batters have trouble with good, fast rotation.
Secondly, whereas the errant pitcher's cut will cause the ball to move early on, as she ages and gets faster, the movement will diminish. A good 12 to 6 wrist snap will put harder and harder break on the ball as a pitcher gets faster and faster. The baby hook will not get the job done. As pitchers get older and faster, their hooks need to be more pronounced, more clean, faster rotating than the slight cut. Pitchers who have cuts often get the batters out in rec. They also find success in 10U and 12U travel. But as batters get older and better, they learn to deal with real hooks. Baby hooks are like candy. Hard drops remain one of the hardest things to deal with.
Finally, having a clean snap aids in the development of other pitches. For example, if you want to develop a peel drop or good change-up, having a clean snapped fastball is the route. The peel drop is a great pitch because it looks like an ordinary batting practice fastball but breaks hard as it approaches the plate. It is very hard to judge whether it will be in the zone or not and it is very hard to adjust to and hit into play with anything but a simple grounder. When girls get to changes, they often either grip the ball completely different than the fastball and use the fastball motion, they do not snap at realease, or they use some different technique. Having a true, reliable, 12 to 6, hard wrist snap with which to change off of is the way to go. If a kid has a cut on her fastball, the change-up can be very hard to perfect.
To work on the wrist snap, you have to do a lot of boring repetition. But this work needs to be done. The pitcher stands about 15 feet from the catcher and merely snaps the ball to him or her. She can do this facing the catcher, sideways or both at different times. Emphasis should be on the isolated movement of the wrist, straight up. Of course, some girls struggle with merely snapping - they need to move their arm some. That does not represent any particular difficulty provided that the arm motion is slight and the emphasis is on the actual snap.
Wrist snaps should be done as often as a girl pitches. It should be the first of many warm-up drills. I like to use a pre-set count of snaps as our first step. If you are getting ready for a game, sometimes you are in a rush and you don't have time to do a lot of snaps. I have nothing to tell you about that. But in a normal prac tice session, you really should begin with 10-20 fronts and 10-20 sides. My kids have been pitching for a number of years and always do at least 10 of each. I would strongly suggest that beginner (0 to 2plus years) ought to do more. On some occassions with my kids, when they were starting out, they threw as many as 50-100 snaps to improve their mechanics. On occassions when they were too tired or sick, we did entire practice sessions of nothing but snaps. Once, when my kid had a broken non-pitching arm, we did well more than 100 snaops in order to keep her pitching arm in decent shape and to retain her mechanics. The beginning pitcher needs to do loads of wrists snaps over a long period to get this critical foundation set. Older pitchers who have bad snapping motions should be treated like beginners for purposes of fixing what is broken. As you probably know, fixing a busted foundation is tougher than fixing a leaky roof.
The next foundational piece to pitching involves the circle. I've explained why the longest poossible circle is the best before but for the purposes of anyone new, I'll do it again. If you take a string and twirl it in a circle like the axle of a wheel, one point will remain basically stationery while others will be in motion. The point on the string moving the furthest around the circle will be the end point. In one second elapsed time, the point on the string which is at the center of the circle will move zero distance, the center of the string will move some distance which we'll call "1/2 X," and the furthest point on the string will move double that distance which we'll call "X." The end of the string at the center of the circle moves at speed 0, the middle of the string moves at 1/2X per second and the end point at the outside of the circle mnoves at X per second. So, in other words, if you compare the string to a shoulder and arm, the shoulder is moving very little, the elbow is moving much faster but about half the speed of the hand which is moving the fastest. When you windmill a pitch, the ball is released while moving at the speed of the hand. The shorter one's arms are, the slower the pitch is released. The longer, the faster. So if a pitcher does not legthen her arm, if she short-arms it, she is slowing down the pitch. That is why the length of the circle is so important.
There are two main reasons why pitchers short-arm it. For one thing, if you windmill your arm in a circle, once with full extension and once with a shorter arm, the full extension feels out of control. The short arm is an attempt at control. So, if a girl needs to throw strikes to shut her parents up, to avoid sighing from the sidelines, to prevent the trip to the mound by the rec coach who says, "just throw it over the middle of the plate," she short arms it to control the darn ball. This must be avoided.
It is better to not pitch at all in games until you can control a long armed pitch than it is to pitch and develop this bad habit. I remember watching a kid who had little formal training. She was the right physical and mental specimen to be a pitcher long into her later years as a player. But she pitched with an incredibly bent arm. It almost seemed like she was pretending to windmill. She dropped out of pitching by 14. Her mechanics were terrible.
I have also seen kids who have been through formal training develop the same habit. The cause is invariably the desire to control the pitch, to just throw strikes, usually in rec ball or for the middle school team. Walks are a disaster and kids who walk lots of batters don't get to pitch. But kids who have bent arms pitch only in the very young years. After maybe two years, they are washed up.
The other reason kids develop the short-arm problem is because it feels faster to pitch with a bent arm, particularly early on. If you spin your arm around in a circle while trying to judge in which case it is moving faster, I'd be willing to bet that the shorter arm version feels faster. Perhaps it even is slightly faster. But again the geometry tells us that even if the short arm is moving slightly faster, the hand is not until it reaches nearly full extension. So kids who short-arm it because they feel faster, should be discouraged from doing so. once they master a longer extension and practice it, that will be faster.
Think of it this way, of the best pitchers you have ever seen, not at the lower levels, how many short-arm it and how many get good extension? I guarantee you that Cat Osterman, Monica Abbott, and some of the other big names get very good extension. The best kids I have ever watched at 12U through high school all get exceptional extension. I've never seen a short-armer succeed for very long.
The next subject involves body posture. The pitcher's back should be straight up, perpendicular to the ground, not hunched over. If you think of a tripod, the weight is balanced. If there is too much weight on one of the legs, the thing falls over. We want our weight to be balanced pretty well at the release point. If a girl is all hunched over, leaning over her front foot, she cannot get much on a pitch. Girls do this, again, because it feels as if they can gain control on the pitch. They do this just to get the darn ball over in the strike zone, in order to "just throw strikes."
When we are sitting in the dugout watching the opposing pitcher throw her 5 warm-ups before a game, the most frequent comment I have ever made or heard others make is "oh, she's a leaner." We know that this is a girl who is trying very hard to throw strikes, meaning she probably has not progressed all that far with her location. We are going to tell our hitters to go after anything in the zone because we expect they'll be able to hit it. Girls develop the leaning mistake because they have been coerced into throwing strikes at the cost of a proper motion.
Another possible reason some girls develop leaning tendencies is in order to get spins on some pitch they are trying to master. Some pitchers have decent posture on their fastballs but lean when they throw their change or drop. They are still often doing it to throw strikes. But sometimes they need to put that extra body language on the ball in order to get it to drop. In any event, it is a very bad habit. Not only does it prevent any sort of speed from being put on the ball, it can actually cause you to get less spin and it is a back problem looking for an opportunity to show its head.
Our next foundational piece is the leg drive. Usually, if you short-arm it or lean, you can't really get that good push off. But more importantly, some of the biggest problems I have seen with the push-off and leg drive are crow-hopping and leaping problems. Now, for years, umpires have not been calling crow-hops and leaps but they are starting to. We watched the same pitcher ply her trade for freshman through junior year pretty successfully. This year, in one game, she had double digit illegal pitches called against her in just a few innings. There have been complaints about crow-hoppers for years near me and over the past couple of years, I have seen umps call them against college and even Olympic pitchers. &n bsp; It is slowly getting around to travel ball.
The other day, we were playing a fall ball game and a new pitcher was brought in. I watched the kid for a batter or two and dsaid to one of the other coaches, "hey watch this girl, she's hopping like crazy." My comments were meant for just the other coach but the plate ump overheard me and was apparently thinking the same thing. He called out the other team's coach and discussed it with him. the coach went out and talked to his pitcher. This league is essentially an organized way of scrimmaging. We weren't looking for any illegal pitch calls and the ump was not about to make any. But he did feel obliged to point the problem out to the coach and have him work with the girl on it. Umps are getting very sensitive to hopping and leaping. If you or one of your pitchers are doing it, watch out. You're gonna get called.
I think girls develop crow hopping early on due to the way in which they are taught to pitch, with certain pause points in their motions until they get the whole thing ready to pull together. There are also some pitching drills which require one to crow hop and stop. Unfortunately, some girls never break out of the tendency to hop. If your kids are pitchers, you really need to understand what a crow hop is and break your kids of it as early as possible.
Another reason kids develop into crow hoppers is because they propel themselves closer to the batter at realease and thereby are able to put pitches past them more easily. Also, when kids practice their pitching in gymnasiums or at other facilities without being able to push off from a rubber and drag properly, they sometimes develop hops in order to maintain balance that would be easily accomplished on a real field. Whatever the reason a crow hop develops, it should be corrected before it becomes habit.
Leaping is more difficult. I'm not sure why it develops. The difference between a hop and a leap is on the hop, a new pushoff point (a new point of impetus) is found. With leaping, the pivot foot becomes airborn, it does not drag away. I have one kid who developed this and I really don't know why. But what we did to correct it was place a cloth on the ground underneath the pivot foot and make her drag that cloth all the way through to her finished pitch point. I'm not sure if that will help you fix a leap or not but again, umps are more likely to call leaops now than at anytime in the past couple of years. They are looking for them.
Finally, one foundation piece I really want to emphasize involves starting with two feet on the rubber. Little League, PONY, NFHS and perhaps others do not have a requirement that the pitcher start with both feet on the rubber. But ASA and college definitely do. Even if you are not intending to pitch in college, it is more than likely that one day you'll play some kind of ASA ball in which both feet is a requirement. Why not do it at the get-go. Most pitching
coaches will not emphasize this precisely because high schools, PONY, and LL don't. Parents of pitchers should force their kids to start with both feet on the rubber just to avoid future problems and because, if addressed early, it really is not all that hard.
To go one step further, there are two minor bad habits which should be addressed when teaching the pitcher to start with both feet on the rubber. The first of these is to take the sign while on the rubber. I have seen more pitchers take the sign before stepping on the rubber than I have seen take it while on it. But this is in the rules. Pitchers are required to take a sign or pretend to take a sign once they get on the rubber. Understand that I really don't give a rat's arse where a girl takes the actual sign. What I want is for a girl to step on the rubber, compose and balance herself before throwing the pitch. if she takes the sign in back of the rubber, grabs her grip, then steps onto the rubber to pitch, chances are pretty good that she is not going to really be balanced and centered and then she is also running the risk of an ancillary problem of walking into the pitch.
Walking into the pitch happens when a pitcher successively steps onto the rubber and then begins her wind-up without hesitating. This is definitely not fair to batters and is often called. Pitchers, by rule, are required to step onto the rubber, take the sign, bring their hands together for about a second, and then pitch.
If a pitcher steps calmly onto the rubber (with both feet in my view), pauses to take a sign or to pretend to take a sign, if she only then brings her hands together (presents the ball) and then, after about a second, delivers the pitch, she will never walk into her pitch and get her rhythm broken by an umpire requiring her to do so. If she has a hood wrist snap, she'll find more success than if she doesn't. If she has a straight arm in her windmill, she will pitch better. If she keeps her back straight up, she'll not only be better, she will also not develop back problems so easily. If she avoids hopping and leaping, she'll avoid confrontations with umps. If she pushes off well and practices sound fundamentals, life will be better for years to come.
You need a foundation to build a house. You need a foundation to build a windmill. It is easier to build the foundation before the structure. But if you've already built the house on a faulty foundation, you should still try to fix the foundation. Otherwise the thing will fall over eventually.Labels: coaching, lessons, parents, pitching
Permanent Link: Pitching Foundation
Hopes, Dreams, Goals and Such
by Dave
Monday, August 31, 2009
It is really important to have dreams. It is just as important to have goals. But what trumps both is differentiating between the two because doing so changes our actions and determines outcomes.
Dreams are wishes or desires which often exceed our realistic expectations. We hope they come true and we move in some ways to make them happen. But we don't necessarily expect them to come true. They are the upper limits of what we think we can attain.
Goals are things we believe we can achieve. We want them to come true and we act to make them reality. We expect to accomplish them. They are possible given our perceived abilities and ability to improve, and we expect that once they come to fruition, there will be new ones to replace them.
Differentiating between dreams and goals is important because, in the case of dreams, we do not take every possible step to achieve them immediately. I know a few folks whose dream it is to win the Mega-Millions lottery. But they do not mortgage the house or rob their savings in order to buy tickets. Whenever they happen to be near a lottery machine and have a spare dollar in their pocket, they buy a ticket. For a few hours, their dreams are filled with luxury automobiles, perhaps a new oversized house, or fantastic vacations. Then they go online and, if they are really lucky, they learn that they won two bucks to buy another two tickets for the next drawing. They dream about winning millions but they do not act constantly and consistently to turn dreams into reality.
In the case of goals, one does take many actions with the accomplishment in mind. A student sets a goal of achieving a B or B+ in some subject, as opposed to a C+ like they received last time, and they try a little harder every day to improve their understanding of the subject. Instead of devoting 10 minutes to the course's homework, they put in a half hour. Maybe more time is spent checking answers on tests. You know how that game goes.
With respect to fastpitch softball, the same principles hold true. Kids, parents, and coaches all have dreams and goals for themselves, their kids, and/or their teams. They may muse about making it to the final game of the world championship, dream about hitting the big homerun, or picture their child being recruited to play for the WCWS winning team. When we're talking about some Gatorade player of the year, some team which has already competed at the highest levels, or a kid, team or organization which has a realistic shot at achieving a truly noteworthy accomplishment, well, then we are talking about goals. But when we are watching our 11 year old daughter win the town rec championship, we need to temper or expectations and differentiate between dreams and goals.
This is all very rudimentary but I can tell you that often times kids, their parents and team coaches have unrealistic dreams and they act as if those are actually their goals. I would never suppose to take anyone's dreams away from them. I wouldn't even want to temper those, not even slightly.
When my daughter was four, she told me she wanted to be an astronaut. She had this little stuffed lion pocketbook which she cherished and carried around with her most of the time. So when she told me about her dream of flying off into space, I told her I was 99% sure that NASA would allow someone to bring their lion pocketbook with them into space provided that they had owned it a long time and kept it clean. She was very happy to learn this important detail and decided to wipe down her pocketbook.
When, years later, she told me she wanted to play basketball in college, well that was a different story. I thought about it for a minute and all that came to mind was, you are not going to be any taller than 5-6, you're not very quick, you can't dribble, and you only made two shots all of last rec season. So I said, "that's nice, and then we can come watch you play at a big stadium." She also liked the image that conjured up.
Early on in her softball career, my daughter began to play travel ball. She told me she wanted to be a softball player when she went to college. She was 11 at the time and playing on a 12U team of girls who were almost all 13 as of the beginning of the season. It was winter and the outlook for any playing time beyond a few innings on Saturday was not real good. There were four other pitchers on this team. The other girls had played more softball and were more in tune with the pace of the game than my kid was. As winter wore on, we worked very hard on her pitching. I had taken the focus off playing college ball (the dream) and placed it on pitching well enough to earn some innings (a realistic goal). She worked very hard and by the time we got to playing outside, she was pretty clearly the second best pitcher on the team. She had earned playing time through hard work and devotion to accomplishing a goal. She had not merely dreamed.
I tell you this story because very often at tryouts, I see kids who are decent pitchers or players but who could use more time in the laboratory. They make travel teams but do not practice real hard because they are not focused on goals. Their parents field the call from the team coach inviting them to join the team. After they get past the ancillary issues of cost, type of schedule, frequency of practices, etc., they get around to what matters most, "how much pitching time is Jillian going to get," "do you see her playing the infield or outfield," or "exactly where do you see her fitting into the roster right now?"
On numerous occassions, I have had kids play for me or seen kids on a team my kid plays for, who make a team, inquire about their status, and then never again work towards a goal because their dreams of playing for a winning team or of being the star pitcher, catcher or shortstop preclude them from making the realistic conclusion and sacrifice that they need to work and improve their game. On one occassion, I had a pitcher who I envisioned would develop over the winter, come out in spring and be primarily a Saturday pitcher who might also see some action for a couple innings in the field and then hopefully earn more Sunday time as she got her feet under her. Her parents were very proactive about my plans for their daughter, as you would expect. I explained about the need to work and earn playing and pitching time. Then when we got indoors for some live-pitched batting practice, it was immediately evident that she had not so much as picked up a ball since we ended our fall season a few months before. She couldn't pitch more than five minutes of batting practice without getting winded. She couldn't get a single pitch by our weakest hitters and we had a weak hitting team. They tee'd off on her and she got too tired to continue after the second batter.
At the time, I wrote this off and decided to put her in to pitch practice throughout the entire off-season to see what happened. One time she didn't have her mitt with her and could not pitch. Several times she couldn't make practice because she had rec basketball practice or games - her parents told me it was school ball because I had made an allowance for girls playing school sports to miss practice. I subsequently learned she was missing for rec basketball. I still wrote off the experience and hoped the kid would turn it around in the spring.
To be quite honest, that kid did not throw any better in April than she had in late December. When we played our first friendly, I could not, in good conscience, stick her into the circle. And they left my team precipitously. They blamed me, no doubt. I had broken a promise to pitch the kid. I had indeed but it was forced on me by her lack of work. She had unearned the right to pitch.
Another kid I had on my team was a pretty good hitter. She was moving up a class and an age group when she joined the team but she was a kid who I thought would find a decent amount of success. She was taking hitting instruction once a week and her swing was getting into a groove. We did some batting practices and everything looked pretty good. She was hitting the ball sharply. At some point, I noticed that there was the beginnings of a mechanical breakdown and she stopped hitting the ball. I didn't think much about it. Kids, even those in lessons, get into slumps where their coach is trying to correct something and they struggle for a while. Then her parent told me she was going to go "back to those lessons" as soon as the season started.
I couldn't understand what the parent was thinking when they halted this kid's hitting lessons. I knew money was not the issue. If it had been, it would have been a better idea to go once every two weeks or once every month. But this parent just plain stopped the lessons because we weren't in-season with the plan of jumping right back in whenever the weather turned warm. I'm not sure they ever started back to lessons. I do know the kid's swing never again looked right that year. She did not have the measure of success I expected from her when I put her on the team.
These are but two experiences I have had in which players acted as if making a team was the end goal of their lives. I can't count the number of apparently similar situations I have witnessed over the years. Some kid is the star shortstop for a team and she puts her glove away in late fall only to pick it up once a week during indoor training but never attends any clinic or gets out to field some grounders when the weather is agreeable. Another kid barely makes the cut, throws in the yard whenever the temperature rises above 33, goes to every clinic on the planet, makes her mom or dad get her out on the field to get grounders under threat of temper tantrum whenever they sit down for a millisecond. The team gets out for some tournament and the star can't make a play while the scrub acts like a human vacuum cleaner. Who do you think deserves to be SS? Who do you think the other 10 kids want at short?
Coaches are all too familiar with these kinds of happenings. We try out some kid in the fall and she forces us to buy new balls because the ones we were using are now coverless. Then we play real games and kid goes 0-fer-forever. We beg some tremendous athlete to join our team and she becomes the biggest liability on the field. I've heard pitching coaches who teach a large volume of kids talk about the freshman wunderkind who never got any better and was relegated to the bench in her sophomore year when the new promising freshman who played for some out-of-state travel team arrives.
A fellow I know had his daughter on some decent travel team. She was the youngest kid on that team, you might argue she was the twelfth addition to the roster. As tournament season proceeded, he began to notice that she played little on Sundays and not more than a game and a half on Saturdays. He began to get upset because he felt that much of her lack of improvement had to do with a lack of game playing time. Then, when another parent got very upset over her daughters perceived lack of playing time and voiced her disatisfaction directly to the coach, this fellow wondered if maybe he should do the same thing. He decided to think on it for 24 hours before saying anything.
This fellow, while thinking on the situation, placed a call to a relative who had several daughters that had played high level travel ball and then gone on to play in college. He explained the situation and asked for advice. The relative told him this was normal, a good experience for the kid, and not a circumstance which would be resolved by cajoling the coach into playing the kid more. He decided that the relative was right and while his kid's playing time did not improve during the remainder of the season, he learned a great deal and so did the kid.
The other parent, the one who had voiced her disatisfaction, got out of control. Her perceptions were off to begin with. At one tournament, her kid played about 3 innings in each of the team's three Sunday games. She complained to the coach that she was upset because her kid didn't play an inning, "not a single inning!" The coach informed her that she was way off the mark and he had the book to prove it. She threatened to remove her kid from the team. The kid's playing time ticked up a notch but when her mistakes started costing the team games, the situation went backwards and the kid did leave the team.
The parents of the kid most likely blame the coach but I can tell you that most travel coaches in the area know the full story. The kid is more or less marked. There are many teams and coaches who would be willing to give the kid a shot on their teams. But as soon as something similar happens, it is expected and the kid pays the price. That is, when the kid is not in a game for a couple innings and the parents complain about it, as they always do, coaches get their backs up and then start regularly removing the kid anytime she makes a mistake. The kid didn't learn anything. The parents didn't learn anything. The local softball community is wise to the games they play. The result benefits nobody.
As I said earlier, goals have a couple important facets. They need to be realistically attainable. Let's say you play a game and don't get a hit. Maybe your first goal in the next game should be getting a hit. If you've yet to make contact, grounding one back to the pitcher is a goal. I was watching a scrimmage recently involving one organization's kids. They put together two teams and the purpose of the scrimmage (as well as practicers and subsequent scrimmages) was to divide kids by ability and determine who would make which team. A kid from the prior year's B team was batting against the number two pitcher from last year's A team. The father of the B player yelled, "hit one out." The kid struck out! Now, I've never seen this kid hit one anywhere near any fence, let alone get an extra-base-hit off a very good pitcher. She should have been looking to make contact, perhaps get a single. But she began to tense up and swung way too hard because she needed to attain her father's apparent goal of going yard. She acted on the dream instead of accomplishing an attainable goal.
I remember one time my kid was called upon to bunt. She fouled the first one off. I cursed under my breath and yelled, "come on, get it down." She fouled the second one off. She took a pitch for a ball and then laced a lucky single. Another parent told me to chill out because "she got a hit and she's way too good of a hitter to be bunting in that situation." I cursed and told him that "my kid always gets her bunts down" and whether she is too good of a hitter to bunt there or not, that's what the coach asked her to do and as far as I'm concerned, she failed. I also told him, "as far as I'm concerned, if you can't get bunts down, you're not a softball player."
There are very few kids who can hit homeruns. There are very few kids who can be counted on to get hits in key situations. But every kid can get a bunt down. Just about every kid can hit a grounder up the middle when there is a runner on third and less than two outs. There are attainable goals in the shortrun which need to trump the dreams of achieving travel softball immortality. Players would be well advised to focus on something attainable and then set their sights a bit higher after the attainable has been achieved before shooting for the moon.
Tied directly into the issue of goals vs. dreams, of setting attainable goals rather than living and acting as if the loftiest dreams are the goals you should shoot for, is the concept of environmental factors. It is never a great idea in competitive situations to spend too much time and effort contemplating what others are doing. But on the other hand, one should not be oblivious to the competition. Players, parents, and coaches should take a look around themselves and see what others are doing.
I have had occassion to see teams play games in which one wipes out the other. The coaches of the victim team watch the other and comment about how well coached and trained they are. On a few of these occassions, I have tried to learn what sort of preparation the winning side does. Often I hear things like three, even four weekly practices year-round, or a large amount of fundraising which is then used to hire one or several professional coaches to come in a train the girls. I hear that this team has been trained together for three or more years under a particularly gifted coach. Perhaps this or that team is fully funded by some rich parent; they get over a hundred girls trying out because it is free; and all the best athletes from three states join this team because not only are they fully funded but they have the best training facilities available anywhere. You can't compete with that but what you can do is make the most out of what you can realistically do and what you have.
In these kids of circumstances, I never get the feeling that the coaches for the losing side appreciate the sort of preparation their opponent has done. They think if only they did X, got more committed athletes, or perhaps hired any old professional instructor for four weeks of lessons, the result would look like their opponent.
This breeds frustration more often than any measure of success. Coaches get wrapped up in this dream of coaching a team "like that one" and fail to recognize that the measure of their success is degree of improvement not beating the Olympic team. Their goals should be to improve their teams, not to have 9 batters come to the plate with swings that hold the potential of hitting one out every at-bat, or of having defenses that turn two every time there is a grounder and a runner on first. Coaches need to realistically assess the level of ability they have before them and work on devising practices which will improve their team and remove its deficiencies.
Similarly, players need to be aware of what others they play with and against are doing. I can't count the number of times I have heard a kid or their parent exclaim that so and so just "isn't much of a runner. She'll never be fast." I don't know if you all have been watching or not but fastpitch softball happens to be a sport! Running happens to be one of the primary skills. If you can hit a ball 300 feet 50% of the time, maybe you can get away with not running 50% of the time. Otherwise, you're out of luck. If you find yourself on a team which believes it can cover your lack of speed by positioning super-fast girls around you, great, but otherwise you sort of, kind of have to work on your foot speed.
It does not take very much for a kid who cannot run to get out in the yard or at some field and run 10-20 sprints a couple times a week. If you've got a few sheckles, it isn't all that expensive to enroll in an agility clinic once or twice a week. It does not so much matter that you'll never get to first in 2.7. If your current time is 4.0, I guarantee you that you can get that down to 3.5 with just a little effort and not too much time away from text messaging, IMing, or gaming. Think of it this way, when your friends say "what have you been doing," you'll actually have something to say other than "nothin." If you keep it up beyond a couple months, I'd be willing to bet you'll get down to 3.4, then 3.3, maybe even 3.2. Then all that embarrassed talk of "I can't (my kid can't) run" will disappear.
Pitchers in particular need to assess what the competition is doing. If all the other girls are throwing 4 times per week, 10 months of the year, you may be a big shot at 12U but the other girls are going to gain ground on you before high school if you make a habit of really working hard two days a week, only during real season, and only if it doesn't rain on your designated throwing day. I remember having a rough go of it in Little League all-stars. For whatever reason, the manager had designated some kid to be one of just two pitchers. I talked to her about practicing. She cheerfully came to me before one of her starts and told me she practiced every day that week. Well, she said, "not Thursday and Friday because it was raining but every other day." I asked her how much she had thrown and she boastfully told me "about twenty pitches." As you would expect, she got whalloped. She no longer pitches.
But that's an extreme situation and that's low level ball. I have seen similar situations at higher levels. One kid I can think of throws 5-6 days per week for hour and a half sessions. She perfects her pitches and can kill a nat on her catcher's shin guards with a curveball. Another kid has good stuff but throws only when she feels like it (like after she gets beat or when some other kid on her team throws better than she does). Eventually the kid who really works is going to consistently do better than the one who acts only when the spirit moves her. I have seen high school pitchers who are complete maniacs about practicing even though nobody, and I do mean nobody, ever hits them. I know of one girl who is in actual lessons four days per week. She is a throwing machine!
Not everybody can throw as long or as often as the two girls I'm referencing but everyone can plan and execute a program to improve their pitching. It takes a lot to be that good. You're not going to compete with these two girls unless you can realistically say that you've worked nearly as hard no matter how much talent you actually have.
In the middle of the pack, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen young promising pitchers who for one reason or another become satisfied and stop trying to get better. The typical scenario involves a girl who was lights out at 10U, 12U or maybe as late as 14U. She forgets what it took to get to that point and becomes enamored with her "talent." She doesn't work. She doesn't perfect her pitches and learn new ones. Then the hitters start catching up to her. She reacts with a spurt of hard work and then fizzles again. Then her competition begins to pass her and its too late.
We often see youngish pitchers who were once very good but who do not develop real command. Sometimes even their rudimentary control leaves them for extended periods. To be clear, I speak about control when I am referecing issues of throwing strikes and walking batters. I reference command when I mean actually hitting spots to get batters out. Pitchers without control sometimes hit spots. Pitchers with command sometimes walk batters, sometimes lots of them. But pitchers generally first get control and then look to develop command. Pitchers without command get pummeled at higher levels. Pitchers without control walk even number 9 batters on poor hitting teams.
I have watched pitchers who lose their command or fail to develop it. When the existing stock of batters gets better, they often get hit hard and then lose their confidence rapidly. They either go back to B ball and last a few more years or they give up pitching.
When younger pitcher lose control, they usually blame it on the umps or claim they have injuries which are never discovered by medical people. They walk too many batters and before long they find themselves not inside the circle. They seem to be better than that other kid but the coach just won't pitch them. They get invited to join teams but not as pitchers. Eventually the dream diminishes and they learn to play other positions or quit the game altogether.
All these little stories of failure obviously share a common theme. They are about kids who do not practice their craft. I believe much of this is caused by a focus on unachievable dreams rather than attainable goals. I would never try to shoot down your dreams. I would never even suggest that you cannot achieve them. But you've got to get there by working on goals and then stepping up those goals when you achieve your first ones. Before you hit the game winning homerun in the D-1 WCWS, you must hit the ball to begin with. Try that first. Then perfect your swing at the tee in your garage. Then be the star rec player. Then test travel and learn to be a good hitter there. By the way, don't frown when you get the bunt sign, instead lay one down.
You may not ever get to the D-1 WCWS. You may have to settle for the D-2 or 3, maybe even the junior college version. You may have to settle for just making some college team. Perhaps that college scholarship your dreaming of will only cover 10% of your school costs. Maybe you'll just barely make a D-3 school team but get academic money that covers the whole thing while attending a great academic institution which propels you to a wonderful career.
Maybe your dreams only extend out as far as pitching for the high school team in the conference tournament. Maybe they only go so far as 14u or 16U B tournament ball. You still need to focus on attainable goals and then make them happen. Before you do that, you need to determine which of those thoughts in your head are dreams and which really ought to be goals. You need to differentiate and then get to work.
I hope this discussion is helpful to players, parents and coaches. I could say lots more on goals. But I'll leave it at this because this thing has gotten way longer than I thought it would. And besides, I'll need something for another day.Labels: coaching, parenting, work ethic
Permanent Link: Hopes, Dreams, Goals and Such
Ownership
by Dave
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Ownership is an important concept in all human endeavors. With ownership comes all sorts of duties and responsibilities, and of course benefits. If I wanted to enter a political fight or business discussion, I could get into issues of ownership of the means of production - I have plenty to say about that - but this is not the right forum for such discussions. There are many cross-over concepts I'll have to explore to discuss the topic. But this is a a softball blog and today I am interested in exploring ownership as it impacts club travel fastpitch softball. So lets throw away the politics and business, and look at fastpitch in a test tube to answer some questions. Who owns a team - is it the players, parents, coaches, or the fastpitch organization under whose name the team plays? Why is this important and what are the ramifications of ownership?
Many fastpitch organizations proceed under the assumption that any of its teams is playing as a representative of the organization. Win or compete very well and the organization's stature rises. Comport yourselves badly, in terms of team results or coach/parent/player conduct and this reflects badly on the organization. This is certainly a valid approach to running an organization. No organization wants its players/partents/coaches behaving badly. And if teams within an organization can't compete reasonably well, eventually the organization will fail to draw suifficient talent to tryouts in order to put together teams.
We've heard all sorts of stories this year and in years past of conduct which reflects badly on entire organizations. One team at a tournament was disqualified because its players were caught consuming alcoholic beverages in a parking lot between games. That's beyond ridiculous to me but demonstrative of something which can happen that reflects badly on an entire organization. Still, it is probably not a very common occurence and at the far extreme of the conduct spectrum.
A far less extreme example involves coaches berating players in a manner which should not be tolerated. During an elimination round of a large, important tournament, a team coach delved into dark side behavior which reflects poorly on his organization. The game was in the last inning. His team was facing elimination with two outs and the batter down to her last strike. She watched strike three go by without flinching. The coach flipped out and began a tirade. He bellowed, "what were you thinking? What were you thinking? I want to know what you were thinking up there. How could you let that pitch go by? You just let your whole team down."
The girl headed for the dugout to drop off her bat and helmet while the rest of the girls came out for the obligatory congratulationory fist bump to their opponent. The coach came in behind her, still bellowing. The girl cowered. He continued, "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT? I WANT TO KNOW. : I WANT AN ANSWER. TELL ME WHAT YOU WERE THINKING. TELL ME! I WANT AN ANSWER! TELL ME WHAT YOU WERE THINKING."
Do I have to explain this any further? I suppose I could tell you that the team did not have many baserunners that game. Strikeouts were in double digits. One batter in a single at-bat can never lose a game for a team. This particular batter had not done any better or worse than any of the other 8 or so girls on the team.
One person who witnessed the coach's conduct noted that he had no idea whether the guy was the girl's father but if he wasn't and this fellow had been her father, he said he would have punched the guy in the nose right then and there. He also said, if the guy was the kid's father, he wouldn't blame the kid for quitting sofdtb all altogether right there and then. He also noted that in the not too distant future, this kid will undoubtedly quit the sport regardless of who her parents are.
In another instance, involving a different team and organization, we witnessed a particular coach use a vulgar expression, spoken so that all in attendance could hear, in reference to an umpire with whom he was having a heated discussion over a call. He was completely out of control, if but for the moment. He allowed his competitive nature to overshadow his dignity during a meaningless softball game. I've got more to say about this individual a little further on in the discussion but suffice it to say that no organization should tolerate coaches using foul language out on the field regardless of how bad an umpire's call might be.
In yet another example of poor coach conduct, recently at a 10U B tournament, one coach was accused of using an illegal aged player. I get this about fourth hand so I cannot be sure of the facts in this case but this is a morality tale so I'll risk inaccuracy for the sake of making a point. It is my understanding that the player in question was used with the full knowledge of the coach that she was ineligible for 10U. When someone pointed out to others that the girl was too old, an opposing coach questioned her eligibility whereupon the coach agreed to remove her from the game and all succeeding games. Rather than permit this, the host of the tournament summarilly tossed the team right out of the tournament. Discussions ensued on a public forum wherein members of the accused organization thought there was nothing wrong with the coach's conduct and other bashed the organization for cheating. They suggested the coach be removed permanently from the organization. Many parents from within the organization came to the guy's defense. We spoke directly to one such parent who fluffed off the charges and noted that the coach merely wanted to win.
Merely wanted to win? Win by using an over-aged player? In 10U? At a B tournament? You have just got to be kidding me! Anybody who wants to win that badly at 10U of any level has ... never mind. I don't need to get insulting here. 99% of everyone involved with youth sports understands what I am getting at. The other 1% is ... well ... never mind.
I am appalled by the coach's conduct in this case. It calls into question whether he is supervised at all by the organization. I would never even consider my kid playing for them because I would be concerned that the same thing might be repeated on her team. I'm not sure what the organization's parents are thinking when they defend the guy. Actually, I wonder about the parent of the over-aged kid. I can't see myself ever considering having my kid play down in any circumstance. One of my kids once had her age questioned, informally, after a Little League tournament game, because she hit the ball too hard. But she wasn't even close to the cutoff and she never played ball at that levekl again after that. I wouldn't consider my kid playing down in terms of competition level, let alone age eligibility. I can;t say I understand anyone who feels differently, least of all a coach who sanctions it.
So that's a little about the conduct of people within an organization with an emphasis on coaches. When you are out and about, you are a representative of the organization under whose umbrella you play. But this does not nearly address the issue of ownership.
Many coaches feel as if their team is their team, that they own the team they coach. That has both positive and negative ramifications. A coach should approach his/her team's preparation as if the final work is representative of his or her efforts. A coach is responsible for structuring a season's practices so as to put the best team possible on the field. Winning, paerticularly at higher level tournaments, is in fact representative of a team's preparation. But this has its limits and therein lies the problem. There are a number of coaches who see team results, however achieved, as the measure of their personal success. Obviously, the coach who used the over-aged kid might fall into this category. The foul-mouthed coach I mentioned above offers up an even better example.
This guy has a tendency to compile a rather unwieldy roster. He starts out with the typical number, let's say 12, in the fall. He brings the girls together and they play some tournaments, scrimmages, and games. But if the team falters, he starts to bring in guests to fill perceived holes. He might bring in a new catc her if he thinks the team's opponents are running too much. he often brings in one or more guest pitchers if his existing staff is not quite doing the job. He has had as many as 15 kids on his roster during the middle of a season as kids come to guest, get the job done for him, and are asked to stay with the team. Of course, this results in kids who were playing a lot in the fall being relegated to the bench by May or June. Often players leave the team mid-season and who can blame them when they see little or no action and have zero chance of earning additional playing time as the parade of "guests" continues to expand. It is an extremely unfair situation and this guy's habits will eventually catch up to him because word is rapidly spreading.
Coaches can take ownership of their teams but that ownership must be reflected in preparation of the team as it exists when it is formed. If a team is shgort on players or talent, the coach must either fill empty slots early or do more to prepare the team as it is comprised. Bringin in any player in mid or late season is going to cause at least one person's discontent. Bringing in many players in order to win is going to alienate most of the people who did the heavy lifting and fund-raising rthrough most of the year. A continual habit of bringing in guests can only backfire over the longer term. No coach owns a team.
Parents are often somewhat proprietary regarding a youth travel team. This manifests itself in several different ways. The archetypical Bad News Bears commentary of "that kid has no business being on the field" is perhaps the most common example. The question is, who stands in judgment of the relative talents of any kid on a tournament team. Parents of better players find it easy to criticize players other than their own kids. They loook out at the opposition and note that the other team has good outfielders or a better second baseman than we do. We have to improve our roster, get somebody in here who is more athletic, can hit, can make those plays. This is very dangerous ground.
It is relatively easy to stand in judgment of other kids when your daughter is one of the top five kids on a team. Yet very frequently, the most effective thing a coach might do to supplement his roster is to bring in a better shortstop, pitcher, catcher, CF, or some such and move your kid to fill the weak spot in the field or batting order. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your kid is the ace pitcher who, when she isn't pitching is the team's best SS. She hits number four in the order. She is one of the team's best players, if not the best. The roster compiling coach reaches out to girls he or she knows to bring in someone with more talent. That's going to relegate the team's ninth, tenth and so on best player to bench time. But if the new superstar is a better ace pitcher than your daughter, well, she may find herself outside the circle far more than she would otherwise, perhaps playing 3B instead of short, or otherwise unhappy sue to the "roster improvements" and guest players. It is not just the least who are impacted by roster supplementation. And there is indeed always somebody better than your kid at her chosen and earned positions.
When parents believe they own a team, they often can try to bring in girls they know who are good athletes to join their daughter's team. Other parents often resent such practices. I've experienced this sort of behavior in a couple different venues. I almost never blame the incoming kid. I would say I always blame the team parent who, dissatisfied with the existing team, dissatisfied with one or more other players, attempts to bring in the "real player" to make his or her kid's team worthy of her participation. These same parents are the first ones to freak out if some other parent brings in a kid who is better at their daughter's position. Parents don;t own any team. They make their kids' beds when they agree to join the team as comprised. If they dare to try to remake the team, they deserve all the animosity they get. And they deserve someone else bringing in a replacement for their own kid.
So, if the organization, the coaches, and the paren ts don't own the team, who does? That is, of course, where I am trying to take this conversation. the answer is pretty clearly, the players, numbered one through twelve (or whatever size the roster is) own the team. It is ultimately their venture. The organization, the coaches, the parents are all mere facilitators of it.
Before you call me a Communist - for I have just described a fastpitch softball team as a workers' cooperative - let me say that ownership of relatively small ventures must always be in the hands of those directly responsible for its success. If your kids ran a lemonade stand in front of your house, mom and dad most likely hold title to the table, chairs, pitcher, cups, and lemonade itself. But the thing will only make money if the kids working it entice passers by to purchase lemonade. They must be motivated with a high degree of the potential rewards, the nickels, dimes and quarters their patrons will tender in exchange. So it is with fastpitch softball.
When a pitcher strikes out a batter, works a one-two-three-inning, or completes an outstanding whole game performance, the parents and pitching coach along the sidelines rightly feel a degree of joy. When the catcher throws out stealing runners, doesn't allow a single passed ball for a game or an entire tournament, or builds a reputation for being one of the best catchers around, dad or mom can sit and contemplate with glee all those hours of hard work in the basement, garage, backyard or out at the fields and clinics when the catcher's skills were honed. When the outfielder runs all out, dives, makes a great catch in the air and holds onto thhe ball as her body meets terra firma, the person who hit hour after hour of flyball and linedrive can take a little credit for the accomplishment. When the team wins a game, competes or wins a championship or merely competes very well at a high level, the coaches who brought it together and trained the kids can take a degree of elation away. But ultimately, it is the kids who risk failure, who endure countless hours of hard labor, who hone their skills with a goal in mind, who really deserve all the credit.
It is the individuals and the team (as in players) who earn the victory. The parents, the coaches, the organization are the facilitators. They bring the means of production together on behalf of the kids. But it is the kids who must play. It is the kids who must stand in and lay down a bunt against the 60 mph lightning bolt thrower. It is the kids who must keep their heads down on some freakish 100 mile per hour grounder. It is the kids who must gain the next base without being put out. They do the real work. They take the real risks. They get the credit regardless of what we, the parents, the coaches, the organization do for them.
This is so because it needs to be so. Kids will do for their teammates what they will never do for their parents and coaches, never mind the organization, about which they care little, if at all. The kids on a team need their peers' approval. They should like most if not all the girls on their roster. They want to perform for each other. years from now, they may remember how they made a play or got a big hit which impressed so and so, a teammate. They aren't gointg to give a hoot about how they showed Mr or Mrs. so and so. They aren't really going to care how they showed the coach what they could do. They care about what they have done for their friends. They care about how they performed well enough for the team (as in their teammates) to win that trophy. And any smart coach or parent is going to use that.
We had an interesting experience this year with a 14U team. They came together with not many kids knowing each other. Most had no experience playing A level travel ball at 14U. 3 kids had been bit players on prior competitive 14U ball. Many had played B ball. One had only played baseball - with boys. Some came up from 12U. All in all, we had a group with some athleticism and talent, but very little experience.
A funny thing happened along the way. The girls became very good friends. Early on, while they were proving their bona fides to each other, they won a couple tournaments. They had very good spirit. This probably facilitated the growth of their collective friendship. But still, they were not a team which had been through much together. They lacked that certain somthing, despite the early wins. As time wore on, they began to falter. Games against easy teams were played with easy errors and silent bats. They p;layed poorly one Saturday and set an impossible task for Sunday - though one they almost pulled off. They got smoked a couple times by good teams. They lacked energy on the field though the girls remained good friends. They had forgotten how to win. They lacked the magic they though they had.
The team went to a very big tournament and played first level games with a few reflecting decent performances and a few some of the worst ball the team had ever played. Then they went into a complex elimination round and lost again, once quite badly. At this point, the girls were exhausted and had no idea how to win again. Someone suggested that they were taking the wrong approach, not so much on the field but in their own minds. The person told the girls that they were playing for their parents and the coaches, though not doing a very good job of that. They told them they needed to play for themselves.
The person went on to say that "you Becky should be playing for Sarah; you Jenny, you should be playing for Mary, Joan, Steph; you all are in this together; you play as a team; you win as a team; you lose as a team." The person continued, "you need to play for each other. You all like each other. You all want to play softball together. You ned to play for each other and forget about the parents and coaches. We're all here merely to help you guys play together for your own reasons."
later the same evening, after a couple dreadful losses, after the suggestion by an adult, the girls got together, calling a team meeting with no adults invited. By all acounts, the meeting was a very emotional one. Most of the girls cried. Some said things they never thought they would. The girls decuided that their goal was to stay together as a team. That was the most important goal they shared. They all liked each other and they would play for each other. They wanted to win and keep themselves alive in the tournament.
The results are pretty much what I would expect. They played all out. They played well. They played for each other. They won a couple games against teams which had previously beaten them. Eventually they lost and were eliminated from the tournament. That was a sad moment but not nearly as sad as it would have been had they lost badly or not played well in the game which caused them to exit. More importantly, afterwards, they still had their team. Actually, they had more of a team than they had entered the tournament with. They were al;l better friends than they had started the thing as. They had forged a team. T9ime will tell whether they will continue to grow or eventuallty falter. But I'll be interested to watch their progress. They have crossed over into some very positive territory. They have learned the important lesson of this very difficult game.
It is the players who own the team. The parents, coaches, organization can lay claim to their hard won victories. But those entities will never feel what these girls feel about their team, about each other, about themselves. They have learned that when 12 kids work together for a common goal, they can accomplish what 12 individuals never can. They have learned that taking responsibility for one's contribution to a group effort can make their good friends feel good about themselves. They have learned that taking ownership has onerous duties and responsibilities, but, of course, immeasurable benefits.Labels: coaching, parenting, youth tournament teams
Permanent Link: Ownership
Thor, The Viking Bandit - part 4
by Dave
Monday, June 22, 2009
This is part four, the final piece, of our multi-part special interview with Chicago Bandits pitcher extraordinaire, Kristina Thorson. In part 1, we discussed rec play through high school. In part 2, we discussed her experience as a college player. In part 3, we discussed her experience as a professional pitcher. In this section, we focus on Thor's future including the short-run, during which she will be coaching a high school team and continue her work as a private pitching coach, as well as the longer term which is still up in the air a bit but could include work in public health. We also ask a question or two regarding the possibility that one day she might be a Little League parent!
Q: I see that you are going to be a high school coach during the next season. I know how I would feel about making the switch from player to coach. What are your thoughts about this? What are your expectations?
I couldn't be more excited! I can't wait to share my knowledge and love of the game to a new group of girls. It's a new challenge for me, which I love, and I'm going to learn a lot. I know we're going to have a solid and deep pitching staff, but my only real expecations are that the girls learn a lot, that they have fun, and that they are in every game and play to win.
Q: The high school game is very competitive and a nice level of play. But let's face it, whether coaching boys or girls, the situation is complicated by, well, having to deal with high schoolers, with teenage girls and boys and all that this entails! In my HS driver's education class, we were told to never get behind the wheel after fighting with boy or girl friends. Yet with all the drama that goes on in high school, it is very possible to watch your clean-up hitter stroll to the plate after wiping tears out of her eyes because her boyfriend split up with her last night, then strike out with bases loaded against the 61 mph all-state riseball pitcher. I watched our high school almost get knocked out of the state championships, which they eventually won, by a significantly inferior team when the first baseman dropped an easy toss from the pitcher on a routine play. She had attended the senior prom the night before and hadn't slept very well - our proms always seem to coincide with state playoff games. Do you look forward to such HS drama or is it something you hope to avoid?
I actually kind of look forward to it, because I think I can help the girls learn a lot. I've learned so many life lessons through softball, I want to pass those on to my team next year. It's not going to be easy, but great things rarely are. And yes, high school girls are drama no matter how you slice it, but these girls are going to get a big head start on other girls their age. I don't put up with drama, so they are going to learn to keep that off the field, and hopefully learn how to cope with things better while at the same time becoming more accountable for their actions.
Q:Of all the levels one could start coaching at, youth, high school, junior college, you have chosen to jump into the coaching arena with high school. I know some NPF players have jumped in at the junior college head coaching level or decided to become assistants under established D-1 coaches. For example, your teammate, Samantha Findlay is an assistant with Depaul. Is there any particular reason you chose the high school level?
Coaching college has never really been something I've wanted to do. I don't want to say it will never happen, but it's not a big dream of mine. This coaching job kind of found me. I have 5 pitchers I work with that will be at Cal High next year. There was some drama with the coaching staff this year, and they ended up losing both their coaches just after tryouts. So for a week, their team didn't have a coach. So the players I work with were trying to get me to coach them this year. I tried, but I couldn't free up my schedule enough to be able to do so. However, the man who agreed to coach the team this year said he wasn't going to do it next year. My girls got the idea in my head, and it grew and grew on me, so I finally applied and got the job.
Q: What are your ultimate goals coaching a high school team? Do you think you will coach for a long time? Do you have any aspirations of one day becoming a college coach?
I don't know how long I will coach at Cal High for, but I'd like to say a few years. I really want to try to build a program there, because there are a lot of softball players in that area. I really want to give the girls there a glimpse of what college life will be like, but more importantly, I want to teach them to work hard, be accountable, and teach them life lessons that will help them later on no matter what path they choose. Like I said before, I don't have any real dream of being a college coach, but never say never.
Q: Some high school coaches forbid their roster from playing any ball outside high school for the duration of the HS season. This makes sense to me as they practice a lot and play when not practicing. The wear and tear on the body can be significant. But some HS coaches go beyond this common sense approach, encouraging parents of players to form summer and fall teams (we don't play formal HS ball in the fall where I live). Kids on the high school team might be encouraged, perhaps a little stronger than merely encouraged, to play for these teams rather than local travel clubs. Some kids might argue that their participation with their old travel club actually cost them playing or preferred position time when high school season rolled around. How do you feel about this?
I think that high school coaches should stick to high school ball and let their players play for whoever they want for fall/summer teams. I will encourage my players to find summer teams to play for, but it's obviously not mandatory, and it's really not meant for everyone either. I feel like if you're a high school coach, you should stick to high school and the things you can control, which is your high school team. Let the kids do as they please, they need to be happy.
Q: Your bio includes much discussion about your educational and clinical involvement with infectious diseases as well as your interest in Physiology and Kinesiology. You have expressed an interest in one day conducting research into the "effect exercise has in preventing illness from infectious diseases." Do you see your life's goal as relating more to public health, to athletics, or do you feel strongly that the two are so related that you aim to make that more apparent to others?
At this point in my life, it's really hard for me to say. I am very passionate about both areas of study, and can see myself pursuing both. My plan right now is to apply to different schools, once I have money to pay for school, and see where I get accepted, then go from there. There are many, many things I'd love to study. We'll see which doors open up for me.
Q: I see that you already do some private pitching lessons. From a purely economic point of view, that can be at least as lucrative as many other pursuits. I have no idea what you charge for lessons but, at least in my area, it can be seen that a pitching coach with the reputation that comes from being a Gatorade player, a PAC-10 star and WCWS participant, All-American, and a bona fide professional ace, would all seem to point to long lines of girls standing outside your stable doors begging to come in. What I mean is, given your credentials, you could move just about anywhere in this country, set up a tunnel and fill every waking moment with pitching students at $50 a half hour. If you wanted to conduct group lessons at say $20 a head as some coaches do, you would spend most of your spare time explaining to people why you couldn't fit them into classes. Some people would wonder why pursue high school coaching, which does not pay particularly well, or many of the other jobs you would consider, when just hanging up your shingle and net would provide not only economic well being but also a lot of satisfaction. Any thoughts on that?
I love doing private lessons, and I have been lucky enough to be financially comfortable. I wouldn't say that I have a lucrative job or anything like that, but I can pay the bills and still save up a decent amount of money. I know that by coach high school I will lose money, but that's not the most important thing to me. I love being a part of a team, and it's a new challenge, so it's totally worth it to me. Plus, I can reschedule my lessons so I don't lose too much income either. I think I'll be fine. I try to live life by experiences, not by necessarily doing what is going to bring in the most money.
Q: Do you hope to one day raise a family and if so, would you prefer to have boys, girls, or a mix of each? If you had girls would you try to push them, ever so slightly, towards softball?
I go back and forth between wanting a family. I love kids, I love watching the girls I work with succeed, and I think being a parent would be an amazing thing. But, there's also the part of me that wants to travel the world, help people in all sorts of different situations, and that's not a good environment to raise kids in. If I do end up having kids, I want them to be active, but it'll be their choice what sports and activities they do. I would love it if I have a daughter that played softball, but I don't expect her to share my passion. She's a different person, I want her to decide her passion.
Q: If you had boys, would you look to get them involved with baseball?
Pretty much the same thing, I'd want them to play whatever sport or activity they are passionate about.
Q: If your children were to play several sports as they began high school, do you think you would encourage them to focus on one or two rather than play something different in each season?
That would depend on a lot of things. What are their long term goals? How are their grades? What other activities are they involved in? Are they successful and having fun in their sports? I think that as long as their grades are good, they are free to make their decisions on how they want to approach sports. I made my choices, I want my kids to have the same opportunity.
Thor, The Viking Bandit - index page- Part 1 - rec play through high school.
- Part 2 - experiences as a college player
- Part 3 - experiences as a professional pitcher
- Part 4 - future including high school coach, private pitching instructor, and some longer-term possibilities
Labels: coaching, high school, national pro fastpitch, parenting
Permanent Link: Thor, The Viking Bandit - part 4
Psychological Obstruction!
by Dave
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
A reader writes in to ask:
"I was wondering if you might share your thoughts/understanding on interference and obstruction. I am a coach and league official for 8U softball. I am trying to figure out how to deal with what is a minor problem, girls standing in the base path when not involved in a play.
For example, a runner is on second, another one on first, and SS is directly between the bases. The ball is hit to 2B who tries to make a play at third to force out the runner from second. SS never moves and runner has to go around her. Does that constitute obstruction?
Another example happens when runner is on second, SS in the baseline again, and ball is hit to 2B who makes a play at first. Even though there is no play at third, the runner has to run around SS get to the base. Is that obstruction?"
There are any number of scenarios we could draw up where a fielder stands in the basepaths and, thereby, theoretically forces the baserunner to go around her. The particular circumstances don't really matter. There are only three items that matter: whether the fielder does, in fact, obstruct the runner; whether the umpire calls it; and what we want to teach 8s, 10s, etc.
First of all, there is no such thing as an obstruction where the fielder's position causes a runner not to run because she wants to avoid confrontation. There is no such thing as psychological obstruction! Obstruction, the act (or inaction) by a defensive player which hinders, impedes, or prevents the opffensively player from doing hitting the pitvched ball or advancing between bases, must actually occur. This is probably a more important differentiation at 8U where a girl at second might not even go towards third because the SS is in the way. But if she goes, is forced to go around the SS and is put out before reaching third, at least theoretically, the umpire should call obstruction and award her the base.
The scenarios which the reader presented do constitute obstruction. Anytime a defensive player impedes an offensive one without making a tag on her (having posession of the ball), that would constitute obstruction. -; But just because something constitutes obstruction does not mean it will result in a call and even when it is called, there can be no need of enforcing it.
In order for an obstruction to be called, the baserunner must, in the opinion of the umpire, have been able to make it to the next base but for the obstruction. The umpire sees the obstruction; judges that if the runner were not obstructed, she would have been safe at the next base; calls delayed dead ball by holding out his fist; and, if the runner is put out before reaching that base, awards it to her, negates the putout.
If the runner is not put out, if she gets to the base where the umpire thought she would and is safe there, the call is not enforced since there is no need. In fact, the umpire will most likely not say another word about it. Say he/she puts out his hand in a fist and says "obstruction" but the girl gets to the base safely. He/she will put there hand down and never explain to anyone what it was he called.
More importantly, an obstruction call depends on the umpire seeing the obstruction to begin with. I don't think I have to tell you that obstructions sometimes occur without umpires witnessing them and go uncalled. Just like anythihng else in life, if it ain't called, it ain't an infraction.
Further, umpires cannot see what doesn't happen. So, if a runner is at second when a grounder is hit to 2B and she doesn't go because the SS is in the way, most likely no call will result. I think it is important to make young girls understand that a fielder standing in their way should never cause them to not run to the next base. That can be a difficult hurdle, particularly in rec ball. But we need to make them understand what obstruction is. They should be taught not to stand in basepaths and, if they are running the bases, to not stop merely because someone is in the way.
Very often at 10U, 12U and, yes, even at 14U we see players unintentionally blocking basepaths. Say a ball is drilled past the outfielders. Many times I have seen a third baseman carelessly watching the outfielders retrieving the ball while she is standing right near the bag. She isn't focused on her position yet because she is not in the play until the ball gets back closer to the infield. Runners trying to round third sometimes are forced to alter their paths. Actually, I've seen that at all age levels. That fairly frequently gets called but often yields no change to the play as the runner easily makes it to third and then home.
Another scenario which can frequently result in obstruction occurs when there is a runner on first, the 2B has positioned herself in the baseline and the runner attempts a steal of second without the 2B noticing. I see that all the time in 12U. In 14U, generally girls are more aware of the base stealer. And this almost never gets called.
I have also seen numerous kids intentionally obstruct baserunners. There is a local 14 year old travel first baseman who must have been schooled in how to be an aggressive defensive player. She frequently gets in the way of base runners when she does not have possession of the ball. She commits other deliberate aggressive acts too but we haven't got time for those today. In any event, girls mostly shy away from her blocking of the base and umpires seldom call her for obstruction. This has encouraged her to increase her tendency to obstruct.
I have seen other infielders, particularly 2Bs who appear to intentionally get in the way of baserunners. They too give off the appearance of having been schooled to play aggressively. And umpires also seldom call them for their deliberate actions either because they don't see them or because they don't feel the fielder is actually impeding the runner.
It is important to note that deliberate/intentional is not any part of the definition of obstruction. So it doesn't matter if a fielder is performing a deliberate act or not. But I mention deliberate obstruction, whether called or not because what this little piece is really about is what we teach players. And while, for example, whomever taught the first baseman to block the bag without the ball is probably pretty satisfied with the results, my sense is one day they may be forced to rethink that.
Almost every 8 will play 10U ball at some level. Almost every 10 will play 12U ball at some level. Almost every 12U travel player will play 14U and a good portion of those will play ball in high school, 16U travel, and perhaps beyond that. One of my main themes, in case you haven't noticed, is we should always give kids the tools they'll need at the next level. We don't really want to teach 10s only how to thrive in 10U ball. And teaching kids to do things like intentionally obstruct or failing to teach kids to get out of the way when they should can have some drastic consequences down the road.
Teach kids not to play 2B in the baseline. They should be behind it or in front of it. There's no real reason to be in it. We're talking about a couple feet either side of the direct line. The same is true for SS. For players who cover bags including all the infielders but probably outfielders as well, teach them where to stand, not where not to stand, with respect to the bag so as to not ever be called for obstruction. And let's drop this notion of teaching "hard nosed defensive play" to youngsters by having them deliberately block bags. That stuff might yield an extra out or a few outs at 10U or 12U but as soon as girls start playing this game for real, the kid is going to lose some teeth, break a leg, get severly spiked or receive a concussion.
For example, the first baseman I discussed is certainly going to get away with blocking the bag for a few years. She's a big strong kid. But soon she is going to find herself playing varsity high school ball in a league which has many Gold players. Those girls are going to get to know her tendency. They're going to talk about it and decide they need to teach her a lesson. Hard nosed defense is going to meet "sophisticated" offense from girls who can play this game at a high level and have seen these kinds of bush plays before. And whomever taught her this is going to realize it was a bad idea.
Similarly girls who unintentionally or intentionally get in the way of baserunners are going to meet kids who know how to deal with that. Players talk about this kind of thing all the time. And many recognize an opportunity to draw an obstruction call when they see it. The problem is, when girls who can run a 2.9 or 2.7 decide they want to hit that girl because she's in the way, real harm can be done.
As an additional thought, interference, the act of impeding or confusing a defensive player attempting to make a play should also be taught and understood. The most common scenario in which this is called happens when a middle infielder is making an initial play on a batted ball and the baserunner runs into her. I watched a game recently in which this happened and none of the players seemed to understand what was being called. I looked at the coaches for the offensive team and they too appeared to not understand the call. The coaches actually gave off the impression of being happy when their runner ran into the SS. I have to think they believed this to be obstruction. It isn't. It is interference, the runner is out and the batter-baserunner is awarded first base.
Too many of us think the baserunner is required to stay in the basepath when running the bases. The only time this is actually an issue is when a defensive player is trying to make a tag. That is, if a player is attempting to tag you and you leave the basepath to avoid the tag, you are out. But leaving the basepaths when nobody is trying to tag you is never an out. So if you are on second and a grounder is hit to the SS, you should go behind her so as to avoid interference. If she is deep and you cannot possibly run behind her, go in front but do not run over the grounder or otherwise do anything that can cause an umpire to think you caused her to be confused or otherwise impeded her making a play. That sounds complicated but it is not. If you do anything that causes her to have trouble making a play, you can be called out for interference.
I don't know if I have ever watched 8s play where the fielders don't get in the way of runners. I don't recall an obstruction ever being called at such games. Less frequently the same sort of thing happens in 10U and, again, it is seldom called. But I have seen as many as ten obstruction calls in a single 12U game. I have seen fewer in 14U because the girls are more experienced but I think I have seen more injuries due to an obstruction there as well. In 18U and high school ball, I see lots more injuries from offensive and defensive players colliding. And girls who deliberately or unintentionally get in the way are often not only the victim, but also get the worse end of the bargain. So teach your 8s and 10s to avoid obstructing runners. Don't teach them where not to stand. Teach them where to stand. And don't forget to teach your baserunners not to shy away from fielders in their way. Yes, we all should avoid contact of all kinds whenever possible. But bumping into the 2B when stealing is sometimes the only way you'll get the call. In teaching this, d0on't forget to go over interference. A runner who does not shy away from a fielder standing in the basepaths should be equally cognizant of the fact that if she is making a play on a batted ball, it is you who must stay out of the way.Labels: coaching, interference, obstruction
Permanent Link: Psychological Obstruction!
Free Market Economics
by Dave
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
I've been watching and listening for any mention of the current administration taking over the softball showcase world. There just does not seem to be anything out there. That means we are all at the mercy of the free market. So it is strictly a buyer beware proposition.
Some months ago, perhaps a year or more, I received disturbing word from a softball acquaintance of mine. This guy's daughter had joined a showcase team to get in front of college coaches. The team was playing a showcase tournament at which there was no elimination round playing to an ultimate champion. The thing was organized purely to get college softball aspiring kids in front of college coaches. The guy's daughter had done her homework, identified several schools she would be interested in, and contacted the coaches to get information and, ultimately, to get them to take a look at her. One of the coaches was in attendance but the girl was not in the lineup for that game.
I'm not sure if I remember this perfectly straight but either the college coach or the kid asked the team's coach if she could be inserted in the lineup for a few innings. The reaction of the showcase team's coach was somewhat odd. That coach informed the kid not only that she would not be inserted into the game, but also that the coach would always make all the decisions about who would play where and how much. He/she did not appreciate being approached to put some player in. The coach said he/she would always play to win and play whomever gave the team the best shot at winning, always, under all conditions!
That is disturbing to me. The best shot at winning a showcase game at a non-competitive tournament? Who is zooming who?
The world of showcase ball is very expensive with kids (parents) paying more to play on these teams than on run of the mill competitive travel teams. Typically, we are talking thousands of dollars before we even look at travel expenses. If you want to participate on a showcase team, you are definitely in for at least a thousand more than other teams and then, once you want to go to the full complement of events, well, by the time you are done, you may be out of pocket as much as ten large. At least one parent told me he had spent closer to 15 one year because he wanted to travel and watch his kid play. That's fine, if you can afford it but, well, you can go to college for less, especially if you get some academic and/or financial aid.
When I refer to "non-competitive" tournaments what I mean is, the world of showcases is varied. There are those with a set schedule at which winning games means absolutely nothing. There are some which conclude with an ultimate champion. There are many others where the only trophy is bragging rights to some sort of best record in bracket title. I suppose you could participate in the ones which end with a champion just like you would any other tournament, that is, try to win the things. I also suppose there is value to an organization which earns the bragging rights for winning a bracket. Perhaps you can earn games on a field where there are actual college coaches next year. Perhaps you will find an easier time recruiting players next year. But the ones which do not have any sort of winner or loser are an entirely a different matter.
When parents go into their pockets to pay for showcase teams, they are looking for exposure. Most of the time, they are choosing a team based on the salesmanship of the coaching staff rather than their technical softball skills. They want guys and gals who are on a first name basis with the college coaches. They want people who schmooze targeted coaches, take them out to dinner, know their kids first names, etc. They want to be on teams with good reputations, good reputations for placing kids. They frequently are not interested in the team's chances to sport an undefeated record or otherwise lay claim to best in state titles.
To be sure, sometimes kids join these teams with an eye towards earning a berth to ASA "A" or Gold nationals, perhaps even competing well once there, if not winning the whole thing. It can be a bit of a fine line. But while ordinary travel ball coaches have an allegiance to the full roster to get the maximum number of games for each and all, showcase coaches have that added duty to get the best possible exposure for all the girls who are paying the freight. Whereas a typical travel coach fields his or her lineup to get as deep into the tournament as possible, the showcase coach must also serve the more important goal.
I remember sitting through my very first showcase game. The pitcher for one team was rolling along nicely. She was truly outstanding, a likely D-1 prospect. I was mesmerized by her skills. Then came the fourth inning and the coach pulled her for a much less impressive kid. The team was in the lead something like 2-0 but the next pitcher quickly yielded some baserunners and then a couple runs. Neither team seemed to take much notice of the pitching change. Nobody seemed very upset or happy about taking or relinquishing the lead. I was dazed and confused. Why had the coach pulled her? Was she hurt? Had she pitched to some pre-arranged number of pitches or innings and now was her time to rest? I didn't know what was going on. But that coach had 4 pitchers to get in and just two games to do it that day. The games were time limited so he pulled his pitcher after 3 and put the next kid in. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
More recently a fellow wrote to me to complain that his daughter had joined what was called a showcase team. The team had brought several pitchers onto a slim roster. They went to their first couple of tournaments and had used just two of these girls. The other pitchers never so much as warmed up. His daughter was one of the "other pitchers." He wondered if he was getting upset over nothing. He wanted some advice. I told him to find another team and leave. But don't just leave and move on. Tell all your softball friends and acquaintances to avoid the team like the plague. Tell them exactly what happened. The rest will take care of itself.
That is the way the showcase world gets policed, by you and me, by buyer beware. The softball world is very small and if a team holds itself out to showcase girls but plays every game as if their reputation demanded victory, well, the next time they conduct tryouts, the talent pool will be significantly reduced. Who, in their right mind, with a full set of facts, is going to join a so-called showcase team which feels no loyalty whatsoever to the goal of actually showcasing their kids?
The truth is, this particular team does not play many true showcases. Rather they play a few real showcases and then mostly compete at run of the mill tournaments which call themselves showcases. These do not draw a lot of college coaches. They do not draw the best possible teams even from the local area. They are showcases in name but they are not showcases for bigger time talent. And the teams which attend are usually pretty petty, choosing to put winning over showing their kids.
A friend of mine told me about how he had his team playing showcases. I tried not to ask the critical questions about which college coaches he saw there. He noted that the teams they had played were very good and his team had done poorly. The second day of the tournament, they were stuck in a bad location due to their poor performance the day before. But I wonder how many college coaches were at the good site and I wonder how many of these teams were just there to fill out there schedule or tune up for the time when they will be playing national qualifiers. This guy's team was very young. And he was new to the very idea of "showcase" tournaments. He had signed up for this one merely because the organization running the tournament had called it a "showcase."
Showcases, like all products, run the full spectrum of quality. There are showcases which are really just dressed up 18U tournaments. They don't really draw any coaches. There are those affiliated with skills assessment camps with throngs of coaches in attendance. There are those which exist purely because they bring in droves of college coaches and the best teams year after year. Before you choose a showcase team and shell out your limited sheckles, you really need to educate yourself on the big, important showcases and learn which of these a particular team plans on attending.
If a team has a schedule made up up Jason's Car City Softball Championship and College Showcase, ASA/NSA/PONY A or B states, PBA softball extravaganza, etc., I would hope you wouldn't be mesmerized by the term "showcase" in their name. I would hope you wouldn't shell out $3,000 to play a bunch of pretty good tournaments within driving distance of your home. if you are going to pay more than regular travel, you;ve got to go to at least 2 to 3 bigger name events.
On the other hand, let's face the fact that many of us do not have the spare cash around to put our 6th graders, no matter how good they are, on a team which plans 6 out of state treks via airplane this summer. For many, a lesser interstate experience is appropriate. But I hope the prices are commensurate with the experience. If on one hand I have a team headed to 3 Gold qualifiers, 4 true big time showcases, and 3 other events, and on the other a team playing mostly dressed up regular tournaments, I would not expect both teams to cost $3,000 before travel expenses. If a team charges you $3 grand to play local showcases with no coaches around, maybe you're being taken.
In any event, if my daughter is involved with a true showcase team, I expect full lines of communication between myself and the team's manager. We all understand that our daughters need to stand up on their own, learn to deal with coaches on their own, and generally make their own way into the real world. But those fine and noble goals go out the window when we are talking about $10 grand for the year and multiple years going forwards.
The kid cannot enter into a legally binding contract. If I'm essentially purchasing an automobile, well, I demand lines of communication. And whereas I would not ever approach a coach to discuss my kid's playing time on a competitive run of the mill travel team, I'll be damned if my dollars are going to go to showcase 9 other kids while my daughter rides the pine and bides her time. Don't tell me that she needs to learn to pay dues and she'll be the beneficiary of other kids doing the same as she ages up. That's not the way it works. Check out your competitors.
In softball, as in other human pursuits, it is buyer beware. Showcase ball is no different. But showcase comes with a higher price tag. So before you buy the horse, look at the teeth. You want to know exactly the tournaments you'll be watching. You want somewhat firm commitments about playing time and an understanding that if a college coach comes around specifically to see your kid, the team's coach will be considerate enough to do what he or she can to get your kid in there.
You want to be able to talk to someone if you are not happy with the situation. Don't tell me parents must stay in the background with respect to this aspect. Yes we need to be neither seen nor heard when the college coaches are around but we have full right to talk to coaches and representatives of the organization about any topic. This isn't the high school team. This isn't 14U NSA ball nor any sort of regular travel team. This is showcase. Lots is riding on the opportunities here. There are alternatives to your team. I'll trust in your expertise but I am an active participant. This is a partnership.Labels: coaching, college, parenting
Permanent Link: Free Market Economics
Who Is In Charge?
by Dave
Monday, June 08, 2009
A few weeks back I wrote some commentary having to do with several topics, one of which was about catchers who had free reign to chase runners regardless of the situation. At that time, I suggested to you that good teams do not just allow their catchers to throw at runners whenever they please. I received a little pushback from a friend who thought I was talking about very young catchers and felt we need to encourage these girls to make the throws at a young age because they're going to have to make them when they get older. I was not writing about younger catchers. I was referring to all catchers from very young but including those in college. The specific examples I referred to were all at high school level and up. I agree that sometimes you need to encourage a catcher to make certain throws in order to develop their skills. But allowing catchers to just throw whenever and to whichever base can be as bad for their development as it is for the team.
Without going back over the specifics I wrote, what I suggested was for any interested party to create an experiment through which to judge the success and failure rate of "aggressive" catcher-made throws. I feel the results of a real examination of certain throws we often see catchers try to make would be enlightening.
Typically, we see catchers try to throw out runners at first when those runners take liberties by getting a little too far off base. That can be a very valuable tool for certain situations. Depending on whether you have a righty or lefty batter, the catcher can have a great look at the runner, the fielder covering, and the outfielder backing up the play. First is the safest base to throw to.
Second is a bit tougher because the throw is quite a bit longer. There is also the fact that the pitcher has her back to the base runner and is not necessarily in on the gag. I have seen numerous times when a catcher tried to pick off a runner at second and the pitcher made a great play to get her glove on the ball and prevent it from flying into the outfield. She didn't know the catcher was throwing to second. Sometimes, despite herculean effort, such a pitcher can only manage to tip the throw and then the ball sails someplace where there is no back-up. This alone can make the throw to second a low percentage one.
Also, because fielders need to be in position to make plays if the batter hits a grounder up the middle, the 2B cannot always get to the bag timely to take a throw down to second. Obviously, during most of these situations, the SS is concerned with covering third on steals so she's not going to be the one covering second. That's as it should be anyway because you really want the covering fielder to come from the back side of the runner on a pick-off. If you happen to have your 3B covering third and your SS is freed to take the throw at second, it is still a bad idea to have her covering since she is coming from the same direction as the baserunner. But I'm hoping most of you realize your 3B needs to be in for the bunt and the SS should be covering third.
So the difficulty of getting a runner at second do to the fielder perhaps getting there a little late, plus the distance involved, plus the fact that the pitcher may misread what is going on, makes the pickoff at second difficult and a low percentage play. Add to this that generally, the baserunner at second gets off a bit more than one at first or third, that she may deliberately try to draw a pickoff throw in order to advance to third, and the fact that a throw from second to third to get the runner who moves on the pickoff attempt is made all the more difficult by the covering SS probably being in a bad position to take a throw from second. What's more, the secondary throw to third, should the runner attempt to advance on the pickoff, is a really bad proposition since a bad throw will sail out of play and therefore hand the baserunner home. The ad hoc pickoff at second is not something we want to encourage.
The pickoff throw at third, however, is my personal demon. I absolutely hate it. I have seen more runs score as a result of a pickoff at third than for any other type of play. I've seen catchers strike the batter with the throw - once a game was lost when the ball struck the batter's helmet and sailed out of play. I've seen balls many times strike the helmet of the baserunner diving back in and then fly out of play. I've seen SS's get struck in the face and other places by such a throw as the ball comes in right past the diving baserunner. The SS never saw the ball until it was on top of her as the runner just barely missed being hit. I have seen catchers stumble as they went to release the ball and throw it past the LF backing up on the play. And I have seen very, very few runners ever caught off base like this.
The overall point I ewant to drive home is NOT => don't ever try to pickoff a runner. of course we want to pick off runners. But it cannot be an ad hoc decision by the catcher. It must be called by someone else. And just about everyone on the defensive team should know it is coming.
If we're going to make a pickoff attempt at first, I think I would rather try to lure the runner into complacency by having the 1B up for the bunt and not rushing back to cover the bag. If the baserunner belongs to me, and she sees the 1B rushing back to cover, I want her back on the bag. That's the way all runners should be trained. But it is just possible that the 2B can sneak in behind the runner without the base coach realizing and catch everyone sleeping. So, at the very least, the C, 1B, 2B, and RF have to know a pickoff is coming. It has to be a called play. The catcher can call it. The 2B can call it if she thinks she can sneak in. The RF, at least in theory might be the one who would notice the opportunity so she should be able to communicate to 2B, etc. if she thinks it should be tried. And of course, a coach should be able to call it.
If we think of it this way, it should work. There has to be a verbal call like "Red Rose" or some such where the catcher is letting the 1B and 2B know she is going to throw. 2B should let the RF know, if the C can't be heard. Alternately, the C could have a hand signal for the various fielders but it can't be something that will be confused with other signs. Bottom line is everyone must know it is coming, everyone except the runner and base coach!
If the pickoff is coming at second, like I said, I want the 2B covering that so my SS is covering third. You cannot do this in standard bunt coverage situations since the 2B has to cover first. But if you want to run something like this, I think I want a pitchout anyway. In fact, if you suspect a bunt, the runner on second is expecting the SS to cover third and the 2B to cover first so she's likely to be vulnerable. She's also more concerned with moving to third if the batter gets one down. She believes nobody will be covering second so she may be lazy getting back to the bag. Call a pitch out, have 2B cover second while SS runs to cover third, and pick her off, if you want to be aggressive. I've seen this play wreak havoc in ITB a few times. Most importantly, I would limit my catcher trying any pickoff at second to these types of plays. And I'd want it called from the bench.
With respect to third, I have more trouble identifying the situation in which I want a pickoff attempt. I have absolutely no doubt that many of you can come up with certain situations perhaps you saw this past weekend. But I also have no doubt that I cvan see the situations differently, that I'd be less prone to try a pickoff in those. I do realize that having a runner on third with no or 0one out, the game tied late, etc. can really cause stress. I realize that you'd be willing to trade almost anything, except a run, to get rid of that girl. I just happen to think the pickoff from C is the lowest percentage play.
I'd almost prefer a play in which the C throws immediately and hard back to the P who wheels and fires to get the lazy runner out. That's a 40 foot throw with a clean line. But most well schooled base runners are not going to be vulnerable to that sort of thing. If a coach or say the 1B were to notice that the runner at third were off the bag more than a full stride and a dive, and then be slow or lackadaisical getting back to the bag, then I think a pickoff 2 to 1 to 6 ought to be attempted. I'm sorry, I just don't want the throw to come from the C.
This is a really important issue to me for many reasons. I've been lucky to have had the opportunity to watch a lot of very good catchers. Almost all of them are very aggressive players. They'd like to get every runner out, whether they steal or simply lead. Several girls I've watched have cannon arms. I've seen quite a few with sub-2 pops. And yet, I've seen more bad throws, costing a run at a critical time, than I have seen runners actually picked off.
Recently I watched a young catcher ply her trade. She's very good. But I believe she is overly aggressive and I think I know why. I don't want to get into the reasons why. But I think this sort of behavior needs to be, if not controlled, at least tempered, even aty a very young age. You don't do a kid any favor to build up the notion that she should throw to every base, every time, if when she gets to Gold level, high school, or college, her coach is going to take pickoff decisions out of her hands. And in the meantime, if she costs her teams more games than she wins by being the hero, especially on elimination days, well, you get the idea.
OK, I don;t want to go into this any further. I just want everyone involved in this game, particularly coaches and perhaps, to a lesser extent the catchers themselves, to consider the percentages when doing a pickoff play. I want you to assess this realistically. Its OK to pickoff but let's have specifically designed, called for and executed plays for this.Labels: catching, coaching, defense
Permanent Link: Who Is In Charge?
Get Dirty
by Dave
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Is there a coach out there who doesn't like it when his or her girls lay out and get dirty? I remember once complimenting a high school coach on the development of her team. I watched their first game of the season in which they played what I would describe as a superior team. The game went to the seventh inning, tied 0-0. The opponent got a couple baserunners and then there was one of those unfortunate hits, a bloop, a bleeder, behind first but out of reach of the second baseman, which just barely found fair territory. I think two runs scored on that. Later in the day, when I saw the coach at another game, I told her, "you've got a good team - they played with that team for 6 innings. They are much improved." She reacted by saying that the game had been a tough 0one to lose. I suggested that it was just dumb luck that the ball had found the ground on that play. She agreed but added "I would have liked a dive."
I once had a girl who liked getting dirty so much that her entire goal in any practice or game was to find the situation in which she could dive. It became kind of a joke or game between us. If we were practicing and there was no opportunity for her to get dirty, towards the end of practice, she would ask me sheepishly if I could give her "something to dive at." There's a lot of wisdom in this which I don't think I realized at the time.
The first time you dive after a ball, you are likely to be somewhat uncoordinated. It ain't gonna look pretty. The reason for this is you do not really have the experience to know how to dive properly nor the timing as to when exactly to dive. Like everything else, you have to practice it before you can perfect it.
There are some kids, boys and girls, who, from the first time they can walk, like to slam into walls and to find the ground, particularly dirty ground. With boys, I believe this is a relatively common phenomenon though I certainly have known many boys who disliked terra firma.
I incurred quite a bit of ridicule once for diving after a ball. Of course, that was situationally questionable but I had been programmed to dive after balls. The reason I received so much ridicule for diving was because I dove during batting practice ... and we were playing on blacktop ... and I was 36 at the time ... and I got kind of cut up. My reputation as a sober, stayed tax executive - I was a manager or about 8 others at the time - was not enhanced by my dive that day. But my conditioned response from youth was to dive after any ball I could get my glove on, even at practice.
With girls, I think this tendency to desire getting dirty is usually found in those we come to refer to as "tom boys" though certainly I know several girly-girls who enjoy falling to Earth. I suppose this observation is true of almost any behavior, some girls and some boys do it naturally and some do not. But, also like anything else, I believe anyone can be taught to accomplish the task.
If we are coaching girls softball and have any affinity for seeing our girls "get dirty," we simply must teach it. It is prefereable to begin this with easy falls that are unlikely to injure anyone, however slightly. So head out to the grass and make sure the ground is suitably soft. If you want real fun, wet the ground and make sure it is very soft, even muddy, just as you would for an initial sliding practice. You may want to forewarn parents to dress their kids appropriately, if you plan this for a particular practice.
Next get yourself a bucket of balls. Then set up each kid, one at a time, into a good ready position. Then throw balls which are just out of reach and require a dive just to make contact. It isn't really important that the balls be catchable. It is more important that each throw require a dive. At this point, we are looking for a dive from a standing, ready position - no steps required.
Throw balls to the right first since this is a more natural play. Then throw some to the left while teaching backhand plays. After each player has had 5 or more reps with each side, randomly choose the side for another 5 or 10.
Once you have performed plenty of standing dives, move on to dives after a single crossover step. The player gets in ready position, and you throw it so that it cannot be caught with a mere dive. throw it so the player must take a single step before diving. Then move on to situations in which the player must take multiple steps before diving.
Did I have to say that you should teach the girls how to dive? We don't want girls diving all over the place while slamming their bodies so hard into the ground that they suffer injuries to internal organs. We are looking for dives which are performed low to the ground with the weight shifted forward. They are much more akin to what you would see with a baserunner diving into a bag than one would see of a swimmer diving into a pool. But you knew that and I didn't have to tell you.
I think I'll elaborate on something that is important to consider when teaching diving. The typical dive, especially when players are performing it early in their diving career, does not involve a dive in which the ball is reached towards the end of the dive and hopefully caught. Rather what is usually involved is a play in which the ball is caught when the player is way off balance and cannot recover to a standing position. Very seldom is a ball caught by other than a highly skilled, well-experienced player at the end of a dive. I think you can see this in as much as 90% of all softball and baseball dives, even at high levels.
What typically happens when a player is seen to make a play and end up on the ground is, she does not fear falling to Earth and, therefore, she extends herself beyond her comfort zone to make the play. She can 't recopver to a standing position and she goes down after she catches the ball. It is important within this drill to teach girls how to land so as not to break or otherwise injure their wrists or arms. You land on your palms or forearms, not your fingers or elbows. And these parts of your bodies are sliding forwards, not abruptly striking the ground. the motion is sort of like what you would do when using a slip and slide from a standing position, face forward.
OK, so once you have taught diving after a ball on wet, soft ground covered with grass, it is time to move back over tougher ground, like in the infield. The play I think I would like to see used in such drills are those that would be accomplished by a corner infielder on a ball she cannot get while standing. For example, a third or first baseman would dive for a smash hit down the line. The third baseman would necessarilly dive to her right, the first baseman to her left. It is best to practice both of these.
After this, it is also advisable to teach girls to dive on the infield when they are going after grounders, right outside their reach. Your middle infielders often go after balls that would be just out of reach if they tried to stay on their feet. Practicing grounders just beyond reach which require a player to get dirty is an excellent skill to teach. Additionally, outfielders should be taught in drills certain situations in which going to the ground can turn a basehit into an out, a double or triple into a single.
Lest I forget, one of the most important skills when teaching getting dirty is the recovery to standing position skill. This is not necessarily natural for any player. Typically, in youth softball, we see a kid go to ground to make a play on a ball, get the ball, and stop right there. It is a less frequent play in which we see a kid go to ground, get up and throw the runner out. But this, as much as the general diving skill, should be practiced. Why go to ground if the outcome isn't any different? A successful dive ends when the player recovers and makes a throw.
If you like to see your players get dirty, you may get lucky and get a girl like the one I coached several years ago. But if you aren't so lucky, perhaps you should consider teaching the skill. Start with the basics - just getting used to diving. teach how to land. Move on to dives after a step or several. Then build to actual in-game skills. Make sure you teach recovery to a throwing position after the dive. Teach the pieces of the skill, show its application, and then turn your charges loose. I believe you will be satisfied with the results.Labels: coaching, defense, outfield, practice
Permanent Link: Get Dirty
Bunt D, Geometry, Time and Distance
by Dave
Monday, May 25, 2009
I know I've written about this in the past but I find I must write about it again because I saw this issue change the outcome of games this past weekend. Also, I saw some mistaken comments on a forum which demonstrate a little bit of confusion. So I must address it in a manner which explains the whys and why nots. The issue is bunt defense.
The classic baseball bunt defense with a runner on first involves the third baseman crashing in to cover anything to the right of the pitcher, the pitcher covering the first base side of the field, the catcher covering anything he can get to, particularly out to be about 15 feet, sometimes more, and the first baseman staying at his base to take the throw. Teams can have 2B cover the second base bag and the SS cover third in case the runner from first decides to try to take another 90 feet. Or the player (pitcher, 3B or C) that does not field the bunt can cover third.
This generally does not work in softball. Why? Mathematics. Don 't believe it? Examine the geometry, time and distances involved.
First of all, as we talked about, it takes a baseball runner at least 4 seconds to reach first. Good softball runners get there in under 3. That's a heck of a big difference. To explain this a bit more, in MLB, the average time to first is about 4. In softball 3 is the minimum standard for a relatively slow runner in D1. I have seen sub-3s at 12U travel, though they are somewhat rare except when a team is designed for speed. At 14U travel, 3s are far more common. At 16U, you see a fair number of them because less athletic girls have dropped out of the mix.
Secondly, the typical first baseman in baseball stands behind the bag on most plays, though he may come in, even with the bag, perhaps in the cutout, toes touching the lawn, when a bunt is expected. In baseball, 1Ds often play almost as far back as the outfield grass. In softball, it is relatively infrequent to find the 1B an ywhere behind the bag. With a big hitter who has the tendency to hit the ball to the right side, sometimes the 1B stands behind the bag but this is somewhat unusual except at very high levels. Most of the time, at most levels, she's about even or up 5 - 15 feet from even.
When a softball 1B expects the batter to bunt, it is not unusual for her to position herself about 40 feet from home while charging on the pitch. The same is true for the 3B, although some girls seem to get close enough to smell what the batter had for breakfast. If you saw the Olympic team play any games in which Bustos was at third, you know what I mean. The batter's were actually complaining about her breath. (Yes, I'm kidding but I've never seen anyone play closer than Bustos.)
With the 1B charging, she can easily be closer to the batter than the pitcher is after delivery. You figure that the pitcher is somewhere around 35 feet from home when the ball arrives to the batter. The two corners should be closer to 30, maybe as close as 20 feet away, when a bunter makes contact. For this reason, the P's responsibility is generally for a straight bunt, right back to her, which gets by the other fielders. She is almost a backup to 1B and 3B.
It is certainly possible that the corners are crashing too hard. Very good teams will see this and then have their batters fake bunt while pulling back and taking an almost full cut. This can be referred to as a slap bunt, depending on how you define "slap bunt." And while many tournaments prohibit this at 10U, most above that do not. Offensively, this is a decent strategy to get the defensive corners to stay off the bunt for at least a half second since even these players mostly value their lives. When I talk about right handed slaps, this is specifically what I'm talking about.
After the bunt is down, usually you will see the P take coverage of third, assuming she doesn't field a hard bunt. There is certainly some room for debate over who does precisely what. I have seen college catchers take the 3B coverage but I don't really like this as much as having one of the bunt fielders, the one who doesn't retrieve the ball, 1B or 3B, take third. I feel that way because I know what it is like to run with shin guards. I'd prefer my hard working catcher not have to do that.
Lest I forget to mention, expecting your catcher to field a bunt beyond an arc about 5 feet from the plate is also wrong. Why, the 3B and 1B are already there. On anything beyond five feet, they have to be able to beat the catcher there. And they don't have all the extra backage of shin guards, helmet, etc. which makes an errant throw possible. That is not in any way to suggest that your catcher is less than a great athlete. Rather, I'm merely suggesting that if your 3B and 1B can't beat the catcher to a bunt 6 feet in front of home, they aren't being nearly aggressive enough. If you get caught off guard on a surprise bunt - not a plain vanilla sacrifice - certainly you want anyone who can get there, pitcher, catcher, whomever, to make the play and get the out. But I'm thinking that you won't be surprised very often.
What I feel is non-negotiable is the 1B's role. I don't see any way around it. She has to cover the bunt because if she doesn't, a smart bunter is going to bunt the ball down the first base line and there's no way the pitcher is routinely going to be able to make this play.
In rare circumstances, perhaps you do not have a 1B who is athletic enough to play bunt defense. I've seen this before. But if thet is your situation, you have to devise something different. You cannot merely tell the pitcher to cover bunts. The best alternative is to essentially switch your 2B and 1B. You pull your 2B in parallel to the pitcher like perhaps you do on slap D. Your 1B plays back behind the base line and over to her right so that if the batter pulls back and hits one in the empty hole, she can maybe field it. Otherwise, your 1B has to field bunts.
You can disagree with me if you like but I am going to respond by asking, "have you ever coached baseball," "do you think the games are pretty much the same," "what is the relative time to first in the two sports," or something else along these lines. I do not believe I have seen the coach yet who tries the classic baseball bunt defense and who can answer the appropriate questions the right way. Most of those who try this have also coached baseball. Most of those who try this will not guess correctly what the times are to first in the two sports. Most of those who try this do not have a lot of tournament experience. Most of those who try this would never just go watch a fastpitch softball game which did not involve their kid. They haven't observed enough to realize that not that many softball teams have the 1B hang back to cover the bag. They haven't had the time and experience to realize that if I'm the only one keeping my 1B back, maybe I'm wrong. if the teams still playing in the semi-finals of any tournament crash both their 1Bs and 3Bs, I suppose that does it for me.
I watched a couple teams play some games over this past weekend while using baseball bunt coverage. I saw several bunts placed down the 1B baseline. This happened because the opposition observed their coverage and immediately noticed that the 1B did not charge the bunt. I saw coaches talking among themselves while pointing to the opposition's 1B. Then they talked to their girls while again pointing in the direction of 1B. Sometimes their girls did not get the bunt down, sometimes they didn't get it towards first, but when they did, they were successful 100% of the time. About 75% of these attempts resulted not only in advancing the runner but also the bunter reaching firsty safely.
To be quite honest, when I walk out to coach 3B, the first thing I do is watch the 3B's arm. I want to know whether she is going to be able to throw out batters if we bunt. The next thing I look at is the arms of the infielders and outfielders. 3B coaches who don't come out early and watch the infielders warm-up are missing an opportunity to learn the defensive capabilities of their opponent. I watch as the 1B rolls grounders but I also want to see her make a real throw across the diamond, if that's possible. If the opposition is on the third base side, I hope for her to have to throw the ball to the 3B when the ump calls "balls in." The 1B's arm is as important to the defense as the 3B's.
After I have observed the infielders throw, I usually try to take a look at the outfielders. I want to see if they are athletic, can catch, use two hands when they catch, and have decent arms. I also want to see the catcher. I don't so much want to see the throw down since this is not game situation. I'm more interested in watching how she catches and blocks - I want to see what her habits are. But I will watch the throw down because I want to see what her accuracy is when she is relaxed. If she's inaccurate in warm-ups, she may be inaccurate during the game.
After all this, when the game is going to be played, I would like our first batter to pretend to bunt on the first pitch. Obviously, there's nobody on base and it is possible I won't get a look at their actual bunt defense but I want to see what everyone's, especially the 1B's, tendencies are. Later, when hopefully we have a runner on first, I can see what the real bunt defense looks like and see whether this is a baseball team or a softball one. If the 1B does not charge the bunt, well, there's my first opportunity to exploit the defense.
After the first pitch, what I want to see is where the 1B and 3B position themselves on the next pitch. If 1B is even with the bag or back a bit, I know I am playing against a team on which the coaches or the 1B's father have coached baseball. They haven't watched bona fide fastpitch softball. If the 3B is still even with the bag, well, ballgame over. Sorry girls, we aren't going to be swinging at pitches this game. We are going to bunt, bunt, bunt.
I remember watching a 13 year old team play against a young inexperienced 12U team in fall ball. The girls on the older team were big. Everyone of them looked like a hitter. I saw them in warmups and they all could swing the stick. Then, the game began and every single batter bunted their first time up. Their opposition had played their corners back and not a single girl was thrown out at first until several runs were across. They bunted because they didn't need to do more. Later, when the run rule loomed, the coach let these girls swing away and that they did. They could all hit the ball. They just didn't need to in order to easily win that game. So, why bother!
On our first sacrifice opportunity, the second thing I want to see is who covers third. If on a bunt, the SS takes third, then I know we are going to be able to advance runners to second all day without stealing. The bunts don't even have to be good. Every sacrifice will be successful, if we get the bunt down.
If the defense is proper, I hope my girls have observed this and know to advance a base hard, slide and hold the bag. It would be nice to advance them to third, if the ball gets away but there are risks unless the bunt defense contains another xcommon mistake.
My bunt defense, after observing everything from 10U to D1 college is to go for the out at first with the 2B covering that bag. Yes, if there is an opportunity to nail the runner at second, I wouldn't mind. But you can only do this if: 1) the girl fielding the ball has a great arm; 2) your CF is backing up perfectly which is difficult because I have another positioning for her; 3) the ball gets to the fielder in a real hurry, and 4) this is a called play.
Getting the out at second (or at third but we're getting ahead of ourselves) takes a significant amount of experience. The defensive players all have to move immediately. The girl playing the ball has to have a great inner clock. I don't want a throw to second on the bunt if getting that out is less than 90%. And such a play has to be situationally dictated - I want to call it.
I believe getting an out at first on a bunt has to be routine. Sure, there will be times when the girl fielding the bunt won't get a grip on the ball and make a bad throw. But hopefully, our RF will be backing up and it won't cost us too badly. What I don't want is for our team to fail to get an out because they didn't field the bunt timely or because they tried and failed to get the lead runner who gets to second in 2.7.
I can live with runner on second and one out. I believe our pitchers are, uh, paid, to deal with that. Not getting an out here can open up a big inning. A big inning in softball is 2 or more runs. Not getting an out here opens up first and second with still no outs and another bunt attempt coming. If they succeeed in moving both runners up while there is just one out, they're pretty much guaranteed of getting a run across unless we get a K or infield pop-up for the second out.
So, the idea has to be to get the runner at first unless the situation dictates going for the lead runner. Our 2B is covering first. Our SS is covering 2. And the charging infielder who didn't make the play is covering 3. The 2B takes the throw at first, gets the out, and immediately throws behind the runner at second.
Throwing the ball to second is not some sort of an option. It involves no judgement. Our 2B does not throw to the SS because she thinks she can get the out. She just does it. That's the successful end of the play. That's an automatic. Even if, for some reason, you don't get the out at first, the throw still goes immediately to second.
I believe I need to explain why this is an automatic so I will.
It shouldn't have surprised me but it did. When I went to watch the D3 WCWS, there came a bunt situation in a tight game. Runner on first, no outs. The batter successfully executed a sacrifice bunt. The runner from first got a good jump and made second easily. The infielders charged, fielded the bunt and correctly went to first, nailing the batter-baserunner. The 2B covering first, immediately went to second with the ball. The runner from first had rounded and they nailed her. That was clearly a back breaker.
Offensively, I would prefer if our runner slid hard into the bag in the pop-up slide manner, got herself up and then looked at first. If the ball got away for some reason, I expect she can still easily make third. But if they successfully defended the bunt, I want her to hold the bag.
Defensively, I know that a girl who is moving to second from first on a sacrifice bunt has something completely different on her mind. She comes into the bag at second watching the girl covering. As soon as that girl sees the covering fielder relax and move out of position to take a throw, she begins to think of the possibility of going to third. She wants to get a head start. She can taste third. She is going to round the bag because inside her memory is that game from her 10U or 12U days when she did this, got to third and caused an overthrow there, allowing her to score the game winning run.
It shouldn't have surprised me that this kind of thing can happen in a D3 WCWS game but it still did. So, I know this works there. It really doesn't surprise me when I see this kind of thing work at 12U, 14U, whatever. What surprises me is more teams leave the play to the discretion of their fielders or practice something entirely different.
I have seen teams even at 14U make the bunt defense play I described but completely give up any hope of getting an out at second. They have their SS cover third and then they "encourage" their CF to come and cover second. The CF never gets to that bag soon enough for any kind of play. And when teams see this, they tell their players to round second on sacrifices because they know nobody is going to be there. So when the ball is in the dirt or there is any sort of collision at first, they automatically get third on a simple sacrifice. That's kind of tragic.
What some teams do is condition their players to get the out at first and then throw immediately to third to head off the runner presuambly rounding second. When they do this successfully, they believe they have handled the play very well. But think the whole field through for a minute. If the baserunner from first rounds the bag, which she will do if your CF is covering second, and if the girl who takes the throw at third feels particularly aggressive, she is going to throw to the CF at second to get the runner. Your RF is in foul ground behind first to back up the primary throw, and there is nobody close enough to even touch the ball on an errant throw to second before that baserunner touches the plate. It is a badly designed play.
In my variant where we go to first and then the 2B, covering first, throws to the SS covering second, my CF is backing up that throw. So, if our over-aggression results in a bad throw that gets past the SS, well, the CF is going to have that ball with about 2 seconds to spare to make the throw to third and nail the runner there. I've seen this happen on almost every bunt defense like this where the 2B made a bad throw to the SS. The only time the runner was not thrown out was when she looked up soon enough to realize the CF had the ball and she dove back just in time to be safe at second. Then she stood up, put her hand to her heart and took a deep breath! In short, a proper bunt defense with a throw behind the runner is a high percentage play.
OK, so I think I have said enough but I just want to summarize the whole defense one more time and then talk a bit about sacrifices with runners on first and second, then briefly go over second and third.
C catches and gets balls out to 5 feet from the plate, assuming Bustos didn't beat her there and call her off. P pitches and backs up her corners in case the bunter hits one harder than they expect. 1B charges the bunt. 2B covers first. SS covers second. 3B charges and probably fields the bunt. P, 1B or 3B covers third. RF backs the throw to first. CF backs the throw from first to second. LF backs a potential tyhrow from second to third.
If you want to go for the lead runner at second because obviously the girl at first is very slow, because you know your corners and they are outstanding, because you have a ten run lead, because you just want your girls to have fun, well your defense looks basically the same but your CF is in a different position to back the throw down to second.
When runners are on first and second, obviously the situation is slightly different. Notably, your 2B, covering first, is not going to throw to the SS covering second. Your SS won't be there if she does. She should be covering third. But, no, you still don't want your CF covering second. You simply forget about the trailing baserunner. Your focus must be on getting the out at first and then paying close attention to the runner at third. The 2B must come immediately off the bag at first and charge for the pitcher's circle, ball in hand. The pitcher must be clear of the p[athway between your 2B and third. Your LF must be in a good backup position and, I believe, one of you other players should be in foul ground behind third, tending towards the infield. That can be your 3B unless she fielded the bunt and then it should probably be your 1B.
If your 2B can see a certain amount of distance, she should throw to the SS. The distance is equal to more than one step plus a dive. If the runner has to take two or even one and a half steps before diving, your 2B has to make the throw. It is an automatic. You need to show her this in practice with a real baserunner.
Understand that if your 2B comes off the bag, she should most likely have shortened the distance to third from eighty some-odd feet down to around 60. The throw has become a relatively easy one. And if the runner at third is daring her to throw, she ought to throw.
The SS has a primary desire to catch the throw and make the tag but this is not like a steal because the runner is not necessarily sliding. She may break for home. So the SS has to recognize this, catch the ball at all costs, and if the runner is breaking, she must wheel and throw home. At this point, if you end up with a pickle or develop what is a close play at third, I think your players should be conditioned to eat the ball. You've already made a clean throw to first, then third, and presumably home. Why tempt the fates unless you are that confident in your players. You've already scared the heck out of the baserunner and the play is really over unless you make an overthrow into left where there is now nobody backing up.
One more time, the goal on a sacrifice with runners on first and third is to get the out at first unless the situation dictates something else, unless a coach calls a different defense, unless the bunt is fielded extremely quickly. Remember, the runner at second is going to get an even better lead from her bag towards third. She should get a five step running lead and the time it will take her to get to third is shorter than the time a runner takes getting to second from first. The throw is shorter but I don't think you can get the out at third unless the runner from second is very slow. I would save that kind of play for high levels, very high levels, or a very well practiced team.
To explain this further, I watched a great high school game go into ITB, 0-0. Both teams were very good defensively. Both pitchers were solid. Neither team had more than a handful of runners on base at all, let alone beyond first. In ITB, the visiting team came up and, of course, bunted. A quick play was made on the ball and the fielder tried to nail the runner at third. That would have been a great out, had they made it. They didn't. They were left with runners on first and third and I forget what exactly happened thereafter but the visiting team opened up a big inning and won easily. The home team was defeated on that play when their girls tried to get the lead runner. They went with the low percentage play, lost and got clobbered despite playing neck and neck with their opponent for 9 plus innings.
I like high percentage plays even when sometimes it seems like the wrong play, even when one's baseballl experience migh lead to another type of play. I say get the runner at first and then do something else. I say have your 1B conditioned to cover bunts. I say save getting the lead runner for situations in which it can't backfire on you. Whatever you choose for your bunt defense, make sure it is appropriate for the geometry, time and distances involved in softball, not baseball.
So that's it. I apologize for the length of this piece. It probably could have been a lot shorter. But I have too much energy on the subject. I've seen too many baseball defenses played in softball. It doesn't work, at least not against decent teams. Softball has its own bunt defense. It does not use baseball's.Labels: Bunt, coaching, defense
Permanent Link: Bunt D, Geometry, Time and Distance
Important Non? Issue
by Dave
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
There has never been an incidence of doping within the world of international softball since testing of athletes began. Still, doping is something we should all be cognizant of and maintain our guard against. The May 18, 2009 issue of Sports Illustrated magazine contains the sensationalistic cover article discussing hitting superstar Manny Ramirez's fall from grace via a positive test for banned performance enhancing drugs (PED's). If you're a baseball fan, you'd probably be interested in reading the article. But regardless of your interest in Manny, baseball, or the controversy surrounding PED's, there is another article, far longer, less sensational, much more in depth, and of far greater importance to any athlete. It is called "Supplements - the $20 billion Obsession" and subtitled "What You Don't Know Might Kill You."
Thankfully, this article is available online here online at SportsIllustrated.com. I implore you to set aside time to read the whole thing and understand some of the more relevant points for the amateur athlete.
A few years back, I posted something to a forum suggesting that we need to be on guard against steroids and other PED's even within the world of youth sports, even with respect to female athletes. What I got back were a few positive reactions and a large number of sarcastic comments suggesting that girls don't do roids and my post was full of hot air.
OK. I'll accept that most girls are slightly less likely than their male counterparts to desire large bulky muscles and, therefore, to see steroids as any sort of wholly grail. But I guarantee you there is a girl out there someplace having trouble getting the ball out of the infield who trains with weights and might consider taking some sort of supplement to quicken her muscles' recovery time, allowing her to train more frequently, and gain strength more quickly. The thought of this conjures up images of Italian Stallion, Rocky Balboa cracking and pouring eggs into a cup and then drinking the disgusting brew down in a single gulp. Or how about those extra large sizes of tylenol and the like on sale cheap at your local warehouse store or Wal-Mart? What about the girl who pitched 3 yesterday and expects to pitch at least two today? Or maybe the HS girls who went out on the town last night after the big victory and who just realized they have another big game today?
The fact is, we live in a society of 20 minute abs, 5 hour energy drinks, analgesics used to the point of significant health effect, not to mention attention deficit disorder drugs used by undiagnosed college students to get through exams. Supplements are everywhere in our society. They exist wherever athletics exist too. They spring forth from workout facilities throughout the country where all sorts of kids and adults looking to get an edge work there muscles to ridiculous points of soreness.
When we eat a cup full of eggs, obviously we are after nutrition to naturally heal and strengthen the body. We increasingly utilize protein drinks for the same purpose and because they are made more palatable than say raw eggs, not to mention avoiding the risks of food poisoning. Many people grab bottles of vitamin B rich 5 hour energy from convenience stores on bad days during which they need a little boost. In short, we are supplement crazy and that's not a particularly new thing. back in the 1970s, my swimming teammates and I took enormous doses of vitamin C to guard against colds, infections, whatever. Today we have that mentality and more. We drink sports drinks. We seek to learn more about nutrition to properly supplement our diets to quicken recovery or speed our muscular development. TV's "Biggest Loser" is an immensely popular show which profits from the "obesity epidemic" paranoia which grips the country. And everywhere we see fitness and training, we see something else. We see the supplement marketplace.
The SI article discussing this points out a few facts anyone interested in athletics or fitness who would even consider altering their diet for training purposes should know. It points to President Bill Clinton's signing into law a change to the US FDA responsibilities in the 90s. That law took supplements outside the ranks of either food or drugs and made them essentially an unregulated commodity. As SI points out, all those items on the shelves of GNC, other large nutrition retailers, as well as 7-11 and many other stores whichpurport to aid the athlete or nutrition hound, may contain things we didn't know about.
I'm going to leave this as is because I don't want to attempt to paraphrase the article. I really want you to read it. I feel it is THAT important. So once again, just to make it easy for you, here is the link:
SportsIllustrated.com
Please read it before you do anything else softball or sports related today.Labels: coaching, parenting, Training
Permanent Link: Important Non? Issue
Eat It
by Dave
Friday, May 15, 2009
Softball and baseball are percentage play games. There are differences between the games caused by the different time frames in which plays are made but both sports involve percentage plays. We don't execute certain plays because they always work, but rather because they work more often than not. And we pick and choose plays given certain situations. We don't always execute X or Y because they succeed more often than not. Our decisions are dictated by the game and inning situation. Within this realm, certain play choices are bad bets, sometimes made worse by the situation. And because there are differences between baseball and softball, what works in one realm doesn't necessarily work well in the other. We need to examine our play choices before and after game situations in order to educate ourselves and alter our in-game approach.
Offensively, my least favorite play is the bunt with runners on second and third. I also don't care for the play-for-the-big-inning approach when a team knows it is facing a tough pitcher backed up by an experienced defense. I guess another disliked offensive play is the safety squeeze except situationally dictated, used only when the abilities of the defense are well known, and with a very skilled and swift runner on third.
A frequent bad defensive bet is the go-for-the-lead-runner-at-all-costs approach. Also, I dislike the infield-in approach except in certain limited game situations. But I suppose my least favorite defensive play is the baserunner pickoff by catcher attempt.
Let's be clear that the age and quality of competition have as much to do with this analysis as anything else. If you are playing a poor opponent or playing lower age group ball, you can have differences of opinion with what I have to say. A given play can be a much higher percentage at 12U than it is at 14U. Another works in 14U B but almost always fails at 14U A level. It is difficult to analyze anything in fastpitch softball without laying out a specific age and skill level.
The problem I have writing this kind of thing is so often we teach something suitable for one level of ball and then when the player reaches a higher level, they are prone to making bush league / lower level mistakes. For example, I know of one girl who was one of those aggressive base runners at 12U. At the time, she was fairly fast for her age. But as she grew older, to 13, 14 and 15, her speed became merely average. Her baserunning instincts remained at this younger age where she stole the shorts off many teams. She continued to try to employ old tricks that worked in 12U and was frequently thrown out as she moved up. Eventually, she became a baserunning liability who gave her coaches heartburn.
Similarly, I have observed a number of players who pulled certain stunts in 14U ball get eaten alive by the same tactics in upper age groups. For example, one catcher who picked a lot of runners off base when younger, found little success trying the same thing in high school ball, except against very weak oppponents. She had a great arm as a 12U and even still as a 14U. Her arm was fine at 16U and in high school but because the runners had learned to be more careful, her pick-off attempts became a lower and lower percentage play.
So when I discuss offensive and defensive tactics, I suppose where I am viewing the plays is at high school and higher levels since that seems to be most players' target while engaging in youth travel ball. Where I aim my comments is at the ages of 14 or 15 and up. But please understand that, aside from the goal of winning games at the age level you are actually playing, what I am after is preparing kids for the age/skill level they ultimately want to play.
Before I examine each of the plays I have decided to dislike, I want to say a word about baseball vs. softball. As everyone knows, the bases in baseball are 90 feet apart while in softball they are 60. baseball is often played on a grassy infield while softball should always be played on skin. Little League still conducts its 12U championship on grass, possibly because it does make for a niver picture on TV but even LL plays its older games on skin and that is the way fastopitch softball is designed to be played. In any event, very few would dispute that softball is a faster game than baseball.
It takes the typical runner 3 seconds or less to reach bases 60 feet apart. Baseball's time frame is more like 4 seconds. That is quite a large distinction, one third. And it makes all the difference. We seldom see archetypical 6-4-3 double plays made in softball. We do not often see infielders bobble balls or double clutch and still get the runner at first. These things are ordinary in baseball.
In baseball, a well hit ball which stays in the park is often caught because there is a longer flight time of the ball. When it isn't, it is often an automatic double even for the slow-footed catcher. Doubles are harder to come by in softball unless the runner can get to second in under 6 seconds. This is partly because there is a lot less room in the outfield and partly because throws from outfielder to infielder are much easier to accomplish accurately. Triples are a raity in softball and while not frequent in baseball, they do occur with more like the same regularity that doubles occur in softball.
There are probably more strike-outs per inning in softball. There is definitely less offense than in baseball. Baserunning is more critical in softball. Small ball plays a bigger role in softball than it does in baseball.
I suppose I could go on and on but I won't. The point is, baseball and softball are different due to the speed, proximity, and relative offense issues. And what works in one does not necesarily work in the other. The reason I mention this is too many assume the games are essentially the same and then try to employ the same sort of strategies in one that worked in the other. Now to the plays.
In some levels of 12U ball, maybe a well placed bunt with runners on second and third can work well. The girls are not as experienced, more prone to panic decisions, and their arms are not nearly as good as they are at 14U and above. But even there, I think it can be a mistake, especially when playing a game against a good team.
The trick is, with runners on second and third, all you really need is a grounder up the middle which gets past the pitcher in order to score a run. The outcome of a bunt in this situation is either going to be a run scored as the defense gets the out at first, a runner mowed down at the plate while being overly aggressive, or base loaded as the defense freezes to prevent a run from scoring. In bad 12U ball, there is a higher likelihood of someone making a bad throw and thereby allowing a big inning to get started. That is why so many teams will attempt a bunt with runners on second and third. But in better ball, it is common for the defense to get the batter-baserunner at first and then either hold or nail the runner from third. The play works with a high percentage in 12U, though not against well schooled teams. It seldom succeeds at any higher level. So why teach it at all?
If the defense holds the ball, what you are left with is bases loaded. Offensively, the best situation is runners on 2 and 3, not bases loaded. Bases loaded sets up a force at home. Runners on second and third creates a tag play at home. While in baseball, a tag play at home is fairly easy to accomplish, in softball, since the time frames are shorter, tag plays put far more pressure on the defense. It is far harder to catch a throw from an infielder, get the ball in the right position for the tag, and actually make the tag for a catcher. Ideally, a catcher wants to catch the ball, put it in the throwing hand, and then sweep at the runner, making contact with the glove while holding the ball tightly in the throwing hand. That's as true in baseball as it is in softball but a bit more critical in softball since the ball is bigger when compared to the mitt. On a bang-bang play, that is difficult to accomplish.
In baseball, there is a frequent call to play-for-the-big-inning rather than being satisfied with a single run. Baseball is a 9 inning game in which run production is higher than the 7 inning game of softball. defense is a bigger part of the fastpitch softball game than it is of baseball. Many more softball games are decided by a single run. And because, while in baseball a runner scoring from second on an outfield hit is a virtual certainty, except in certain situation. In softball, the runner scoring from second is a fairly high likelihood but nowhere near as high as it is in baseball, especially when playing against gifted, experienced outfielders. In softball, it is most often preferential to go for a single run and avoid the baseball adage of playing for a big inning.
Early in a softball game in which your opposition is unknown, you can make value judgments about the ability of the pitcher and decide that you would rather allow your 2, 3, 4, or 5 hitter to cut loose and try to get a big hit. This should be less so when you are generally impressed by the pitcher and certainly far less when you know your opponent is likely very talented. I have seen more fastpitch softball games in which a first or second inning run is made to stand up than I can count. That doesn't happen frequently in baseball unless there are absolute aces on the mound for both teams. This reality has something to say about the way in which teams play defense early in a game but it probably says more about offensive approaches. With a runner on first or second and nobody out, you've just got to move her over. You cannot assume your that bunting will prevent a big inning since big innings are relatively infrequent.
As an aside, I have noticed a tendency in softball which I want to criticize, at least a little. I'll call this tendency the "dragifice." Very seldom in softball do we see true sacrifice bunts. Most often batters will pull the bat into bunting position at the last possible second. I do understand that the batter is trying to avoid laying down a bunt which allows the defense to nail the lead runner, followed by a second out being made at first because the runner didn't get out of the box quickly enough. But I believe I see more bad bunt attempts in these "dragifices" than is necessary. I see lots of such batters fail to get the bunt down and then place themselves in 0-2 holes from which they can't emerge. A scarifice just had to be get the ball down and then run, not run and try to get the ball down.
Finally, while softball runners cannot start until the ball is released and, therefore, the baseball suicide squeeze doesn't really apply, I think I see too few suicides and too many safety squeezes. This is partly a factor of the lack of sacrifice bunting skills since, on a suicide, the batter MUST get the bat on the ball. It is also a factor of a runner on third being so much more valuable in softball than it is in baseball. But my point is really that a true suicide squeeze, while being a presumably worse bet than a safety squeeze, it is under utilized, especially on a percentage basis. The safety squeeze is a bad bet unless the situation dictates, the defense is weak or on their heels, you are partly playing for runners on second and third rather than merely third, the bunter is an above average dragger with great speed, and your runner at third has great instincts about when to go or not.
A safety squeeze, while very often successful at 12U and even at 14U, can merely get you two outs and nobody on, if done poorly. Many first basemen in fastpitch softball have good throwing arms. That assumes the first baseman takes the throw at first. Most of the time, the 1B will be in close enough that the 2B is covering. And she's likely got a strong and accurate arm.
In baseball, that's often not the case. Usually on a surprise bunt, unless the batter forces the 1B to field it, he is often going to drop back to cover the bag. And in baseball, the 1B is very often a hidden defensive player with a good bat, not always but often. In softball where the first baseman is usually just as athletic as the SS and in which the 2B, another gifted athlete, often covers the bag, the safety squeeze often leaves the runner at third flat-footed and at a cold start as the out is made at first. She's goin g to be dead at the plate, if she goes. In fastpitch softball, the suicide squeeze is not a great bet but it is more effective than the safety. Yet it is under-utilized. That's a shame.
On defense, there are certain bad percentage plays I don't like. The first one is the go-for-the-lead-runner-at-all-costs approach. p I watched a great game a few weeks ago in which the thing went to extra-innings and then ITB. The first batter up tried to bunt the runner from second to third, a good percentage play. The girl who fielded the bunt tried to get the runner at third. The runner from third was fast, skilled, and got a good jump - a running five step lead because she knew her batter was a skilled SACRIFICE bunter. The runner knew her batter was going to get it down unless the pitcher threw an unbuntable pitch. The play at third was somewhat close although not as close as the fielder might have expected. Both the covering fielder and the baserunner ended up on the ground, one on top of the other. But the runner was safe, leaving first and second and still nobody out.
What happened next is not important, except to the players in the game. But this, in my opinion, misplay opened the door for a big inning, 0one the defense could not recover from. The notion that we must go after the lead runner at all costs can, in fact, be rather costly. This game situation dictated perhaps a v ery aggressive defensive play. There are few situations which call for going for a lead runner more than that. But it was still a bad percentage play. Had the team merely toaken the out at first, they would have been under pressure from the runner at third, but the pitcher had a fair number of strike-outs in the game thus far. One might have expected her to gewt another and leave the situation as runner on third with two outs. The worst case scenario probably would have been run in, two outs. That would have left a wholly manageable 1-0 score with the home team coming to bat and a runner on second. The fact that they went for the runner at third was the lower percentage bet.
Whenever there is an important run on third, whether in baseball or softball, there is a natural tendency to pull the infield in. I get it, especially in games where one run will end the contest. The only thing that matters is the girl on third. But those situations are somewhat rare and there is really no choice involved. If you are forced to bring in the infield, you do it, no questions asked. But where I don' like it is in the second inning or at other points in the game where you're up by a run or two, or down by a run or two. The trouble is, having the infield in drives up a batter's average because it cuts down the angles an infielder can take to the ball. I guess what I'm saying is the infield should be in only under certain limited circumstances. I see it far too often in softball.
The best example of the over-used infield-in play happens when bases are loaded or the runner on third is not a fast one. If there is a force, the chances are very high that your fielder can nail the runner even if she is a little deep at her position. There are very few situations in which a ball can't be fielded and an accurate throw made within 2.8 seconds. The runner from third is not going to get the sort of lead a runner at first or second will. if she does, she leaves herself vulnerable to a pitch out followed by a planned and executed pickoff play (we'll get to that shortly). That should leave her in a relatively bad position to make it home on an ordinary grounder unless that is hit into the hole in the middle of the field someplace. An ordinary grounder should be an easy force out at home even with the infield at fairly deep positions.
If there is no force, of course, you may end up having a tag play and you want to give your catcher as much time as possible to make it. The infielders should shorten up a bit but that is not the same as a full infield-in approach. Obviously, if you have a very skilled, very fast runner at third, and the situation dictates, well, then you've got to do whatever is necessary but not when the run is relatively unimportant. If you're already down by a couple, you're going to have to get the bats moving anyway. Why would you want to put yourself in a bigger hole by opening up an inning for the offense? Sometimes you have to give up a run to put out a fire. And if your hitters can't pull you out of the hole, well then you wouldn't have won anyway. If you are up by a few, one run is only going to show up on the pitcher's era. It is often better to allow a run mereloy to clean off the bases. if you're up 3-0 and you pull in your infield to guard against a run in the fifth inning, you get what you deserve.
Finally, we come to my least favorite play. It is my least favorite play unless it is done as a specific strategy to accomplish an important task. Before I go any further, I want to give you some homework. Go watch 100 games and bring along a pad of paper and pencil. On that pad, I want you to write the number of times a catcher attempts to pick off a runner. Note how many times the runner was thrown out and then how many times after she was not, she moved up a base anyway. Note how many times there is a bad throw which allows the runner to move. In each instance, make a notation to the inning and game situation. Then, after you have compiled your data, make a value judgment about whether nailing that runner was important or not based on the situation. I believe when you are done, you will have dozens of examples of catchers making throws. In more than half of these, you will have judged the importance of nailing the runner as low. There may be one or two instances in which the runner was nailed, though probably not - there isn't very much of that in softball. And in many instances in which a catcher is trying to keep the runner close, she probably advances a base anyway. A relatively high percentage of the time, the runner moves on because of a bad throw. Other times, she is moved by a nunt or some such.
Catchers try to get runners, particularly on third, far too often in this sport. The catcher is often left to her own judgment in this regard. Well coached teams don't do that. Well coached teams only want to see the catcher throw at a runner when the coach has called for the play. I have seen so many attempts by catchers to throw out runners when the situation dictated otherwise that I cannot begin to count them. Sometimes a runner steals a base and the catcher wants revenge. Sometimes the runner sees the the first baseman or whomever is a little slow to get to the bag and she is merely harrassing the catcher. Very seldom is a baserunner going to tease the catcher and then later steal a base. If they're gonna go, they're gonna go. They'd rather the catcher be sleeping than on edge, when they go.
The play which really bothers me is the one when the team in the field is up by one or two and the catcher's throw ends up in LF, allowing the runner at third to score and the one at first to move to second. There are limited circumstances in which a runner on third should be thrown at because, let's face it, it is a difficult throw. The runner can and should put herself in the way. We teach runners to run right at the covering fielder when returning to third. I want her to stare right into the fielder's eyes and then get deliberately in the way of the throw. If she moves to her left, you move that way too. if she moves to her right, that's where the ball is going to be, get in the way of the throw. Unless the throw is high, there's no way the fielder can catch it. if it's high, you're gonna slip under it. If it is low, it is either going to bounce off you or skip into the outfield. This is a low percentage play for the defense and one with significant peril.
There are times when a pickoff attempt is worthwhile. In the game I discussed a bit above, after the top of the inning, the team which opened up a lead went back out to play the field with a couple run lead. The first batter up bunted and the defense rightly played for the out at first. That left a runner on third with one out. The coach saw that the runner on third was not being attentive enough. Also, the girl behind the dish was a top notch catcher who is undoubtedly headed to a college playing career. She has a quick release, a strong throw, and an accurate arm. The coach called a play, the catcher caught a wasted pitch outside, and threw immediately to the fielder who was covering and expeting a throw. They nailed the runner and that broke the back of the opponent. That was a p-urpose pickoff with little downside potential. That was a high percentage play.
Baseball and softball are games played with percentages in mind. Everything you do on offense and defense has a percentage you can ascribe to it. The situation dictates how you evaluate these percentages. The level you play also has something to say about which strategies you emplooy and when but you should always strive to prepare your kids for the next level. You don't do anything in a vacuum. You must school your players on what is the right thing to do in certain situations and the coach needs to have control over when their players do what. You can consider some of the plays I have brought up and perhaps many others that you deem important to your team. You don't wanrt to evaluate these situations and your response while you are in a game. Do it now and then teach your kids in practice or prior to games. Execution is very important but sometimes you are better off having a kid know absolutely and immediately to eat it on a given play.Labels: baserunning, Bunt, catching, coaching, defense, game strategy, Offense
Permanent Link: Eat It
Visual Clues
by Dave
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
In my humble opinion, there is no better feeling in all of sport than that which happens when you hit a ball really well and come to the split-second realization that not even hurricane force winds can keep that shot within the confines of the park. I don't think anything else comes even particularly close. We can debate the point later, if you like, but we need to move on from there now. To me, even though nothing comes close, not even in baseball/softball, the next best thing, though way behind, is the feeling of being on the bases. It can also be the worst feeling and these two possibilities are what I would like to examine today.
First of all, there is a very good feeling that comes with the moment of total clarity one experiences when, for example, one is three steps into the run to first and realizes the ball has just gotten past the outfielder. It is time to turn on the wheels. You are going to, at least, second base. A similar feeling happens when you dive back into first, realize you are safe, and then look up to see the ball screaming down the line with nobody nearby. You're going to third, if you can get up quickly and turn on your speed. Yet another example of that moment of clarity on the basepaths occurs when you're on first and you see the bat come off the ball and take aim for the rightfield line. You are all out around second and probably reaching third, if not home.
These moments of clarity on the basepaths cause an exhiliration on the part of the baserunner as she realizes she is free for at least the next 6 seconds. No decision need be made. Just GO!!!
Where base running becomes far more confusing, far more disconcerting, far more stressful, happens when you get those tweeners, those moments when you are unsure whether, as the Clash song says, "should I stay or should I go, now?" Almost every player has, by the time they are 15, had the experience of being doubled off base because they were off too far, thought they needed to go, and somebody made a good play on a liner or hump-backed liner. There are other experiences like being nailed by the catcher while on third because you drifted off too far; getting pickled on a grounder on which you were not forced; getting nailed at third while legging out what will go down in the record books as a double - especially if you hit it with two or no outs; or otherwise making a bad decision on the bases - more so if it turns out the base coach wanted you to do something else.
We have base coaches because we recognize that the baserunner cannot always know exactly where the ball is, cannot always make the decisions by herself. A runner on second can and certainly should check where the outfielders are before a ball is struck but you can't pay attention to what you are doing on the play, know where the ball is and be 100% certain that the outfielder has made a good or bad play on it. Runners from first cannot always see the ball get past the RF and they need that coach to tell them to go or stop after a basehit. That's why third base coaches are so critical and that's why so many head coaches prefer to stand by third when their teams are up. The runner needs help to tell them: up, down, round the bag, hold the bag, score, etc.
Similarly, runners going to first shouldn't always know what to do next. We train hitters to focus their eyes on the point of contact, hit it and go. They have clues about where the ball is going but they need to focus on their path to first and cannot frequently make the decision to go for second. They often do not see the ball bounce off the outfielder, high into the air, and land 20 feet away. The base coach must assume that role.
So base coaches are critical to successful base running. But they must make themselves completely understood by the runner, sometimes more than one, within a split second. And that communication is what I want to focus on today.
For all you parents, coaches, and yes, base coaches out there who do not exactly remember what the sensations of a baserunner are, I want you to perform an exercise. Get yourself a regulation batting helmet and put it on your head. Now, run in a straight line as fast as you can. Now for step two, run around a regulation softball diamond as fast as you can. Place someone at the two basecoaches' positions. Have those folks tell you something really important as you pass them. Now tell us what they told you. I'd be willing to bet you can't tell me what was spoken to you!
If you cannot perform this exercise, let me remind you what it is like to run around the bases with a batting helmet on your dome. First off, even uif you are a slow runner, the wind whips through the ear holes. It creates quite a racket. You cannot here anything "true." What you get is more like an extremely loud seshell held up to your here. WA ... WA ... WA.
If there are fans screaming while you run, you really don't hear them very well. You get the notion that people are screaming but you aren't sure why. Did someone make a great catch? Is the ball rolling to East Jabib? Is there going to be a close play on you? You don't know what direction the screaming is coming from. You don't know what they are yelling. It is just meaningless noise which combines with the sound of the air running through the ear holes.
For whatever reason, perhaps because the reality of wearing a helmet is a buit like being in a very close space, you usually can hear yourself breathing. Your breaths are very loud in your head. And when they combine with the air rushing through the ear holes, the screaming from the sidelines, whatever your base coach is trying to tell you, and the sound of blood rushing through your head as the adrenaline levels rise, they create something which is generally referred to as a din. I suppose if you've ever seen the movie "Saving Private Ryan," the feeling of running the bases with a batting helmet is kind of like that moment in the movie in which Tom Hanks' hearing has been shattered by an explosion and then it starts to come back to him.
I hope I made the point that the baserunner does not have hearing acuity as she races around the bases. For that reason, there are three things I'd like you to consider. First of all, anything spoken must be done in a loud, clear voice which is limited to a few sounds that are are clearly discernible from others. Second, all clues, instructions, etc. must be handed out at the correct moment. Finally and most importantly, she needs visual clues.
We have all made mistakes as base coaches. At one fairly recent game, I had a girl on third who does not have a ton of experience. The ball got away from the catcher. I told her to "hold, hold, hold." She heard "home, home, home." Using her own judgment, she would have gladly held. But this is a great kid, an obedient kid, a kid who absolutely puts her full faith in her coahes and does everything they tell her to do. She went for home. The pitcher and catcher were able to meet at the plate, exchange pleasantries, discuss what they had done the day before and what they planned to do after the game before they noticed that there was a girl running towards home. They stopped their conversation briefly, tagged her out, and then went into the dugout to continue with the discussion.
I walked off the field a little confused while trying to figure out what she was thinking. It came to me as I approached homeplate. So I said to her, lying there on the ground, completely dejected, "did you think I said, 'home'?" She looked up at me, with tears in her eye and said, "yea, isn't that what you said?" I blinked and said to her, "you see? I told you I would make more mistakes than you ever could. That was my fault."
I want to stop the diatribe for a moment and re-emphasize a very important point. It is absolutely critical for coaches to acknowledge blame when they deserve that blame. Heck, it can be important for them to take on blame when there is some question as to whether it is theirs or not. But when they make some sort of error, it is necessary to let everyone know it was their fault.
Trust me, the kids know their coaches are no infallible. They still may like and respect them. That's probably more so if the coaches admit when they make mistakes. The worst thing in the world to a player happens when they do something that results in a bad outcome when they thought that's exactly what the coach wanted them to do, and the coach turns around and blames them. I've seen this a thousand times and while it may not be readily apparent to anyone that the kid harbors resentment, trust me, they do.
They know they are not to blame. They are not fooled into believing that the coach wanted them to do something else entirely. They know it is that idiot coach's fault. And by not accepting blame, you are setting them up to do the same at some later point. That's just plain stupid softball.
Several years ago. I watched as a third base coach botched play after play. With a sizeable lead and a ball into the gap, he held runner after runner from second at third. Down by a run with the team's best hitter coming up with no or two outs, he played aggressive. Worse still, his clues were all verbal and done at library speaking level. Even worse, sometimes they were contrary instructions. "go, no, stop." After the play was over, this guy had the cojones to walk back to the dugout saying, "I told you to stop." Of course, now his voice was louder, loud enough to hear from any place in the park!
Please understand that I hold no contempt for the coach who says "go" and then needs to say "stop." I think we all have been there. A good friend an d former assistant made that particularly mistake the other day. I know because I could hear him do it. I'm not sure if the girl was safe or out though because I was two fields away from that game and couldn't see the play. All I say is, if you need to reverse what you have already told a baserunner to do, say it loud enough so that God and the Devil can both hear it.
I want to make the point that whatever you do while coaching the bases ought to be loud. Nobody in the place should wonder what you said. Further to the point, you need to work out the words you say given certain circumstances. "Hold" may seem fine but "BACK" can never be confused with "home." There is very little which can be confused with "DOWN, DOWN, DOWN." That particularly true if you avoid using the word "round." "Go, Go, Go" can be confused with "No, No, No" unless you avoid using "No" at all costs. There are perhaps less than one dozen baserunning instructions you need to utter so list those out and then decide whether any of your word choices can be confused with any other. Choose the absolutely clearest instructions you can come up with and then stick to those without exception.
Obviously some people are going to think you a fool if you say things like this as loudly as I do. When I was a child, I had a friend whose nickname was "big and loud." I think he was 6-6. The guy could deafen a person standing within 20 feet of him merely by clapping his hands together. I don't know how he did it but he was the loudest clapper I have ever encountered. I was once at a rock concert with him and got lost in the crowd. I found him by following his clapping sound ... while the music was still playing. Ev erything about him was loud. Our mutual friends referred to me as "not as big but just as loud." So when I say I am loud while coaching base, I really do mean it. And you need to be too. And keep in mind that among those who will consider you a fool for vbeing that loud, this group will not include your base runners who will be eternally grateful for receiving clear, discernible instructions.
OK, so we have gone over being loud and paid some service to the notion of deciding your word choice before youy go onto the field. We've talked about owning at least as much responsibility as you foist upon your players, perhaps more, and owning mistakes you make, out front and in public. But these are the smaller parts because there is something far more important. That, of course, is visual clues.
When coaching base, particularly third, the best instructions you can give a baserunner, especially one moving towards second, are visual ones, assuming you are in the player's ordinary line of vision. The signs should be simple, obvious, discernible, and seen. That's simple but let's discuss anyways.
These signs or clues should be a limited language. A player cannot process four hundred pieces of sign language within a tenth of a second, which is all you have. A simple, violent windmilling of the arm pretty much is universally understood as "go home" or keep going. Both arms stretched out to the sky with palms facing the runner should be understood as stop. You can develop your own visual clues but they must be simple, limited and understood.
Also, these signs or clues need to be in motion before during and after the player looks at you. In ordinary circumstances, you should practice giving these clues to the runner, for example, as she finds herself halfway between first and second. What I mean is, it should be predetermined that the runner needs to pick up the third base coach at this point. So the coach can expect that if the runner is fifteen feet off the back, racing towards second, she is going to be looking at the coach shortly. So he or she should have already made up their minds what to communicate and begun that communication. Then the runner, the person doing the real work here, has the leisure of being able to look for the sign from that point until she is fairly close to the bag.
There is no room for confusion so whatever visual clues you are providing must already be part of a limited language and the specific clue you are providing must not be susceptible to being confused with any other. For example, when a base coach wants a runner from second to slide into third, the coach has to be visible to the runner, he or she must be making a signal that can be confused with no other, and he or she can do any number of predetermined things but the runner must know absolutely that she must slide. I have seen coaches throw themselves to the ground when they want a slide. That was entertaining for the crowd. I'm sure some of the more highb row fans thought it unbecoming of an adult. But I guarantee you the runner slid.
OK, I don't want to belabor the points anymore. I've written enough for today. But before we go, I want to rehash. Running the bases is great, most of the time. It can also be a bad experience, paerticularly if the outcome is bad or confused. Runners need help. That's why we have base coaches. Those coaches have the responsibility to make decisions and to communicate those decisions effectively. They must be loud, clear, preferably visual, provided at the right moment, and practiced. Coaches make mistakes. When they do, they should own them. Those mistakes can be mere mistakes of communication. When that happens, effort should be expended to correct the mistake. Baserunners can barely hear you even if you are loud. If you are soft-spoken, fuggetaboutit. If you are decisive, clear, loud, and visual, you will be understood ... most of the time.Labels: baserunning, coaching
Permanent Link: Visual Clues
Fundamentals Revisited
by Dave
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Earlier today, I was asked by someone to diagnose some problems with hitting. I can't do that. I'm not a great hitting instructor. I know a few things but I am hardly an expert. I'll leave that to the many guys and gals out there who are bona fide professional hitting instructors. My role in all this is really just to provide a little fastpitch entertainment - something to read when you have nothing better to do with your time. More importantly, I view my role as making you really think about some things I believe are important. So that is what I tried to do via e-mail with the fellow asking for help with his daughter's hitting.
The one issue which immediately came to mind in trying to formulate an e-mail to assist this fellow was the issue of fundamentals. I mean fundamentals in general, not the fundamentals of linear, rotational or hybrid hitting mechanics.
I don't want to get any deeper into the hitting style debate. The only thing I have to say now in that debate is rotational is, at its core, Ted Williams hitting. Williams had vision so keen that it has been called mythological - though it was tested at a mere 20/10. He also had long arms, long enough to cover outside pitches which many trained in rotational mechanics struggle with. That's all I have to say.
The general issue of fundamentals is, well, fundamental to participation in any sport. Initially I believe we think of fundamentals in terms of taking some sleepy 8 year old and turning her into someone who can play the game at its most rudimentary levels. But fundamentals are far more important than that.
In most aspects of life, we have true respect for fundamentals. We know that a kid cannot be expected to perform calculus if they don't know algebra or their multiplication tables. We spend loads of time and resources teaching kids to read because we know they cannot understand "War and Peace" without first being able to read and read well. We teach kids so many fundamentals concerning everything they might encounter in life because we know there are steps to learning and living and without the fundamentals, nobody can accomplish anything. We do not look at some 6, 7 or 10 year old and say to ourselves, they are smart kids so we don't need to continue educating them. Yet, often, in athletics, that is exactly what we do.
Think hard for a moment about some kid you knew at some point who was a tremendous 10U or recreational softball hitter, fielder, or pitcher. Maybe her mechanics were a little off. But, gosh darn it, she was successful. She was a natural. I'm not gonna change anything about her approach because she gets the job done. Don't mess with success. I don't want to be the one who changes her and makes her into a worse player.
Coaches and parents are equally guilty of this mistake in thinking. We work with mechanics but when we encounter someone who succeeds despite poor mechanics, we leave them alone because we figure they'll be alright, they'll figure it out, they'll learn the right way eventually. But the softball, baseball, and other sports scrap heaps are filled with once great superstars who did something flawed and were not corrected.
As time wears on, the uncorrected behavior becomes more deeply engrained with each flawed reiteration. At some point it becomes virtually impossible to correct. At some point, the kid herself thinks I'm not gonna do it YOUR way because I already had success doing it MY way, or the behavior becomes so permanently etched into motor memory that it is incorrectable without truly Herculean effort.
Eventually, the lifetime .800 batting average kid achieves the ripe old age of 15 or 16 and she fails. She seeks correction from coaches and they do their best to provide guidance. But it is all to no avail because she has performed the same flawed action several tens of thousands of times.
My most important observation this year involved watching kids I have seen play the game since they were 10U or 12U and who have now made the varsity roster on a number of high school teams. It is astounding to me that I often can recognize a kid from several hundred feet away despite the fact that her body has changed so drastically and she is wearing a batting helmet. My vision is not good - I should make time to go to the eye doctor. But I have this impression of mechanical motion etched in my brain and that kid, two fields over, appears to be so and so. I decide to walk over and check and, almost invariably, it is so and so. Each kid that I recognize from afar still carries the same mechanical flaw from 10U into high school.
You look out over any complex and if there are kids there who threw with a funky hitch, had some affectation when they pitched, or swung the bat with too much of this or that ineffective motion, you can recognize them even if they are way too far away to actually see. Most kids who make any sort of mistake with some sort of mechanical motion will continue to make that mistake for the rest of their lives.
A long time ago, there was a young man, playing 14U baseball, whose swing was none too great. But when he got to the plate, the game stopped. The coach from the defensive team would call time, walk out onto the field, remove the second baseman in order to place him behind the left fielder at a point behind about twenty feet worth of tall trees and the picnic tables which lined the outfield. That fourth otufielder would be placed about 40 feet behind the trees and tables. Then the coach would move the left and center fielders back about twenty paces. The RF would be moved deep and a little towards center. The 2B, 3B and SS would be backed up to the point where they could not make a play on any grounder but that didn't matter since the first baseman was moved back to guard the line should this kid try to put one down the 1B foul line which he often did.
That was one opponent's approach to stopping this kid. It rarely worked. The kid still often hit homeruns between the fielders which would roll out into the parking lot, across the street and into the next lot. He sometimes hit balls between the trees which would elude the fourth outfielder. Sometimes the fourth outfielder would track down a ball and turn to try to throw it in before the kid made it to home, only to have it bounce back off the trees in the wrong direction. Eventually they just gave up with this approach and tried to get him out other ways.
As I said, the kid's swing was deeply flawed. But he had so much success from the age of about 9 that nobody ever corrected him. He received no constructive criticism from any coach until about 14. He was not receptive to it and continued to do it his own way despite numerous attepts to correct him. Perhaps once or twice he tried to do it THEIR way but when he struggled with the correction, it was immediately abandoned.
When this young hitter reached the ripe old age of fifteen, he began to struggle. The pitching was faster and better. The speed made little difference but the movement began to give this kid fits. More importantly, the pitchers began to find the holes in his swing. He adjusted and still hit for a high average but he never again had the power everyone once feared. And then, at 16 and 17, he had more trouble. Eventually, he quit the game. His swing had become unmanageable and he just couldn't cut it because his fundamentals were poor. He might have been something if only somebody had corrected him early on.
Now, that's a story from my youth and concerns baseball but I see the same thing all the time many decades later in softball. I see so many girls making exactly the same mistake in high school that they made in tee ball, 10U travel, or whatever. It is too late for them. You cannot correct a mechanical flaw after playing a game for 6, 8 or more years. The time to correct is when a girl is 8 or 9.
By the way, this is not limited to swings. It is undoubtedly true of throwing, of fielding grounders, of doing almost anything on the diamond. The kid who fields everything one-handed at 10 will be fielding less of them at 16 but use the same flawed technique. The kid who always takes two steps forward on every flyball but is fast enough at 12U to get back to the deep ones will continue to step forward throughout high school but reach fewer deep shots as girls begin hitting the ball harder. The girl who gets to everything from her position at SS and winds up before making the throw but has a strong enough arm to get 12U runners will continue to do that and learn to hear "safe" a couple times each high school game on routine plays she used to make. The catcher who turns her head but somehow scoops everything on the short hop at 14U will struggle to keep balls in front of her when she makes the high school team and catches the D-1-bound drop ball pitcher.
Fundamentals are the key to better fastpitch play. If a kid is schooled in sound fundamentals at an early age, that is no guarantee she'll be an impact player for her high school or ASA Gold team but she does have the opportunity. Conversely, no matter how good she is in little league, she will not be able to cut it later if her fundamentals are unsound. Oh, she may be a very good player at certain levels but when push comes to shove, in the 14th inning of the state quarterfinals, at some point, her fundamental flaws will come back to haunt her and she will fail. Then her confidence will sputter and fall. She will not be able to progress to the next level, whatever that is.
The payback for fundamentals is not always immediate. Sure, when you take a bunch of 8s or 9s who have never played the game, not really, and teach them how to field a grounder or make a throw, you may get immediate feedback. You may experience success by teaching a group of girls the real basic fundamentals. But this steep learning curve will quickly fall flat. It will stop producing immediately discernible results. In fact, coaches will find that if they don't "waste" time on fundamentals in practice, they can get better payback for effort on other aspects of the game like situational play.
This is often the case at young recreational levels. The typical coach sees that if he focuses on fundamentals, his girls will improve and by the time they are at the next level, they'll be solid players ... for somebody else. But here and now, if I ignore the fundamentals and instead teach a more nuanced approach while keeping my best "natural athletes" in the key positions, my team will win today. If I "waste" time on fundamentals now, I can't prep the girls for game play. And my team will lose.
A little while ago I suggested that we, as a society, do not take this approach with other sorts of learning. But my private fear is that we are moving in that direction. We want teachers "accountable" for the results of learning. If a teacher produces a class of poor readers or mathematicians, we want that teacher better trained, more focused on outcome, or removed altogether. That is entirely reasonable. But the best we have been able to come up with in terms of a system is an outcome based approach, No Child Left Behind.
Many educators are unhappy with NCLB. They may not want to be judged by any system. They complain it is an unfunded mandate. More to the point, they feel the system forces them to teach a certain way, it forces them to teach so as to achieve game outcome rather than fundamental skills. They know this results in the 16 year old hitter who no longer can hit a pitch. They know it results in a high school shortstop who can no longer get kids out because her throwing motion is too elongated. They know that before a kid can read, assimilate and fully understand War and Peace, that kid must be able to read. They know that before one can calculate derivatives, one must be able to perform algebra and before that multiplication, division, factors, etc. without thinking very hard about it.
Fundamentals are fundamental. The solution to a complicated problem is to simplify it, deconstruct, and repair the smallest elements. That's true of swinging troubles, other softball related problems, reading, math, everything. If you want to step up your game, go back to the basics and move forward from there. If you want an outcome tomorrow, don't worry quite as much about today's game, the outcome of your next at-bat. Fix your mechanics. Fix your fundamentals. Revisit them.Labels: batting, coaching, hitting mechanics, parenting, pre-season preparation
Permanent Link: Fundamentals Revisited
Game Changers
by Dave
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
There is a softball truism which says: "players win games, coaches lose them." I agree with the general philosophy of the phrase. Yet, if we don't analyze its meaning and come to an understanding, much is lost. And to take the idea one step further, I'm going to supplement it by adding, given today's youth sports climate, players win games, parents can only really participate in losses. Before I explain what I mean by my corollary, let me explain the original truism.
When we look at lop-sided losses, often the coaches have not adequately prepared their players for combat. Certainly sometimes the other team is just that much better and there is no way on Earth we could possibly ever beat them. That is the world of travel fastpitch softball. There are teams out there which have virtually limitless resources, draw the best possible athletes from several states, demand absolute commitment from roster members, practice 4 times a week through the winter, have so much talent (in terms of players as well as coaches) and work the kids so hard that the team just cannot be beaten by any team that is not similarly situated. But this circumstance is somewhat rare.
Most games are played between teams which have about the same quality of athletes, do about the same amount of practicing, and have about the same amount of resources. Even in games with relative team parity, there are lop-sided outcomes. In those, clearly the coaches have not done their work well enough, at least most of the time.
When we view closer (but not close) games in which the score ends at something like 6-2, 7-4, 4-0, there are often a few mistakes which determine the outcome. Sometimes it is easy to point to one, two, or a few plays which handed the other team a couple runs, took our girls out of it, or otherwise changed the face of a relatively close game, one which maybe we woulda coulda shoulda won.
Often teams with which we are involved are prone to that "one bad inning" syndrome or suffer something like: "we play well in the afternoon but morning games give us trouble." When the excuse sounds like that, mostly that is the coaches' fault, sometimes it is one or more parents whose actions lead to the outcome and habit, and almost never is it truly the players who are to blame. This is true regardless of whether it is the best player or worst who repeatedly makes the critical error.
To add some meat to this, I heard about a team which had some pretty good talent but which did not compete on a level commensurate with that talent. About half the team's parents liked to indulge themselves on Saturday nights during the season. They often got together after preliminary rounds and stayed up well into the night. They brought their kids to such gatherings. The result was a lot of kids crawling into bed well after midnight when they had to get up by 6:00 in order to arrive at the field on time for warm-ups. I don't begrudge anyone a good time on the weekends after a hard week of work. But, you cannot win out on Sundays when kids get 6 hours or less sleep the night before. The partying parents were very quick to blame other kids on the team when it should have been obvious that their actions had at least a contributory effect.
Most teams have a range of abilities on their squad. There is that one kid who pitches lights out, makes the plays in the field, especially at key moments, gets the majority of the big hits, earns the MVP medal most of the time, and seems as if she is destined to play D-1 despite the fact that she is just 10, 12, or 13 years old. Then there is the kid who is playing her first year of travel after just one or two rec seasons who just can't seem to make a play in any meaningful situation. She's a "charity" case. You're not really sure why the coach put her on the roster. Maybe he or she is life-long buddies with one of the kid's parents. Maybe there is something going on behind the scenes which you haven't learned yet.
When teams suffer multiple losses like this, usually the coaching staff can do a better job with both the players and parents to get out of that one bad inning habit or to come to games more focused and better prepared to give their opponent a better match. When we play games like this more than once, when we lose by multiple runs against teams which seem no better than us or possibly seem to be ones which we should beat, coaches need to step back and analyze the precise reasons the team fell into its usual trap. Then they need to take steps to mitigate the situation and improve the team. Sometimes they can make a difference, sometimes they cannot.
My wife is prone to claim you are only really as good as your weakest player. Usually it is not the all-star shortstop who boots one, strikes out with the bases loaded, or makes the baserunning blunder which takes you out of a potentially big inning. They do sometimes play the part of goat but often it is the lesser experienced, lesser gifted kid who makes the game changing mistake or error. Coaches can make a huge impact by giving these kids a little more in terms of technique, preparation, and practice reps. We don't want to get into the habit of coaching in a dumbed-down fashion, of working exclusively with the neediest team members, or of ignoring the kids who are most gifted under the mistaken assumption that they'll prepare on their own or are too good for practice. But we do need to make sure that our weakest players are competent in their craft.
Often, though certainly not always, the weakest members of a team are highly motivated. They don't enjoy the feeling that they are the least skilled. They want to get better. They'd like to attain the same skill level as the team's most talented girls. As a result, they take constructive criticism better and actually work harder than other players to improve their games. If you give them an extra five or ten percent, your overall team's results will improve. Almost anybody can become a serviceable player, particularly at lower age levels, if you correct technique and provide lots of reps.
To address the issue of parental behavior, sometimes coaches can make an impact on that enough to at least make them call it quits by midnight. Sometimes there is nothing you can do to change parental behavior and you must live with it. Given today's limited travel rosters - often just 11 kids - it is difficult to bench a player in order to provide her nap time. This can be a really scary situation for coaches. I absolutely despise when parents put me in the situation to place their daughter at third base knowing that she is not alert enough to protect herself when the number 3, 4, and 5 hitters come to the plate and pound the ball right at her at 90 mph. But I have been put in precisely that situation too many times to count.
The best approach is, as it is in most instances in life, communication. I think it is fair to pull aside parents who were out until the wee-morning hours and tell them that if their kid breaks her jaw or nose playing third base because they had a good time the night before, you will not take the blame. This sort of thing can wake up the parents. It can also backfire on you. But I'm not going to take the blame. I don't care about my words cutting me rather than them. If you can bench such a kid, do it once and then explain why you had to do that and that you are prepared to do it again regardless of apparent impact on game result.
Another trap which otherwise good teams can fall into is the clique issue. I have now been involved with enough teams of both good and poor talent levels, of dedicated and not so dedicated parents, of overall cohesiveness and general disharmony, I feel confident in saying that how the girls relate to each other is as important to competitiveness as any other characteristic. When three girls form a faction and then torment or chide the other girls, this does not produce a positive outcome. When one or more cliques form within the team structure, this is not a good or ordinary development. When several groups form socially, the team is not going to ever achieve its potential.
Joe Torre, manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers professional baseball team is famous or infamous for claiming that locker room comaraderie or team chemistry does not build wins and, to the contrary, winning builds chemistry. That may very well be ... when we're talking about professionals ... who have played the game for a couple decades ... who are paid millions of dollars to enjoy their passion ... who know they can earn millions more if they try very hard to be 100% focused on wins and losses, etc. Or maybe Joe is wrong about this and merely lucky. or maybe Joe's management style subconciously creates good team harmony and he is just unaware of what it is he has done to foster this.
I have my doubts about whether Torre is right but he knows major loeague baseball inside and out. I do not. And regardless of Torre's beliefs, I absolutely know this not to be the case when we are talking about 10 - 16 year old girls or, for that matter, boys. I know team chemistry to be critical to competitiveness in youth sports because I saw it firsthand as a participant. The baseball experience which made the biggest impression on me involved a 16U travel team I played for which had great team chemistry. We played well above our heads due to that chemistry. The least talented kids, including yours truly, stepped up and made lots of difference in the outcome of our games. Cliquieness destroys team chemistry, makes the overall experience unpleasant for most team members, and causes kids to be thinking of things other than fielding the next grounder or hitting this pitcher's change-up. Cliqueness has an insidious impact on losing, particularly in contributing to the "one bad inning" syndrome as well as the "we just don't play well our first (or last) game of the day" syndrome.
As a side bar, parents need to be cognizant of the fact that cliqueness is not normal, acceptable behavior. And it leads to losses. Often the worst offenders are the kids of parents who were less popular in high school and who seek for their offspring what they missed. They actually encourage their kids to be popular and to hang with the top crowd. And when they are involved in travel ball situations, they encourage their daughters to befriend this or that kid to the exclusion of others. I know this to be true because I have watched it in action. One girl I coached had a beach house and she made a huge deal about inviting kids to it. She, for whatever reason, could really only handle one or two friends at a time. And those friends had to be her exclusive ones for at least a while. The two or three girls would arrive at the field, mix in with the other girls for a time, and then this clique maker would tell the others about how she and so and so hung out at the beach together all week. She would tell stories about what they had done. The idea behind the story telling was oneupmanship, exclusivity, to announce they were buddies. Then this kid would actually bully other kids on the team and act like she was better than they were. She was not a gifted athlete but you couldn't tell it from her behavior towards others. And her actions made others uncomfortable. She detracted from the team spirit and our focus on the field. I will never have that kid on another team as long as I coach. I would never have a kid on my team who is related to the girl.
It is important to note that parents and coaches have an important role to play in this potentially disastrous dynamic. Coaches need to pay attention to the way their players get on together. They need to nip cliqueiness in the bud when they believe they see it forming. It can rip a team apart and make a mockery out of the structure you thought you were setting in place. Some things to watch out for are one, two, or three girls who are always together and never apart. You should also listen to the what-we-did last night, yesterday, last week after the final game of the tournament discussions. You don't need to intercede immediately. After all, it is important for the girls to make close personal friends with those they spend all weekend, every weekend with. But you need to at least be aware of the possibility of cliques forming.
Parents need to understand that the little harmless comments they make during drives to and from tournaments make an impact on their children. If the team suffered a terrible loss because Sally W. made three errors and "I don't know why the coach plays her at second base when she should probably not even be playing travel," guess what your daughter is going to repeat when she is alone with her teammates? That's an obvious one but everything you say is heard and you need to really guard your language when discussing games or other players. If you comment on one player's skills, your daughter is going to take that as gospel and she is also going to think that is is normal to talk about other people's skills or shortcomings. If you want your daughter's team to win, you as parent need to be more thoughtful before you open your trap!
I'll take this to the next level. If your daughter has ever played on a team that had cliques, you need to address this. One otherwise good kid who has experienced this on one or more teams is going to believe it to be normal. She is either going to act passively and just accept it wherever she is or she is going to react to it proactively and seek out membership to an intra-team clique. In short, she is going to become at least part of the problem. I hope yuou don't want that. I hope you will act to prevent it. If you don't, I'm gonna make fun of you. Didn't you have ANY friends in high school? Are you really that insecure? Are you really that immature?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that a team has fairly well dedicated players and parents, reasonably good talent, has worked the least talented kids to the point that they are competent ball players, and team chemistry is decent, this is where the coaches' work really begins. But the parents have a say too.
The other day I was fortunate to be involved in perhaps the best 12U game I have ever seen. Both pitchers were on. 5 batters came to the plate during one half inning once - the rest were threes and fours. The vast majority of innings had the minimum number of batters regardless of anyone reaching base because both catchers threw out, I think, all basestealers. There were a combined 7 strikeouts. And this was a complete 7 inning game, played in under 75 minutes. There were a handful of errors but I really need to talk to the scorekeeper because I really only remember one and that was at least questionable. The winning run scored in the bottom of the 7th on a close play at home. After the game a parent from the host organization approached me to tell me that this had been one of the best games he had ever seen at any level. Girls made plays I have seen good high schoolers blow. Girls made plays I have seen very few softballers ever make. We lost!
When I look back at the loss, it turned on one mistake. We were trailing by a run and had a runner on base in the top of the seventh. Our number 6 hitter drilled a pitch to within about 5 feet of the outfield fence. The baserunner easily scored. The batter baserunner headed for second as the throw was coming in from the hinterlands to a mid range cutoff. nbsp; I threw up my hands and yelled, "hold, hold, hold, get on the bag" only to watch as the girl looked out at the outfielders, turned around second and headed resolutely towards third. The next cutoff throw came into the pitcher in the center of the diamond. She instantly cut it and threw to third where her throw struck the third baseman in the glove and drove it into the bag where it waited a tenth of a second for our runner to slide into it. It was bang-bang like I've never seen - at this level and infrequently at higher ones. The umpire punched her out and there we were, one out, nobody on, tie game.
One out! Never make the first or last out at third!!
Our next batter struck out but the catcher who was otherwise infallible dropped the ball. No matter - our batter froze and never made a move towards first. No matter, the catcher would have easily thrown her out.
Our next batter flew out to right. The rightfielder had a relatively weak arm. You see where I am with this? First off, we school our kids to pick up the third base coach as they approach second. They are supposed to look for me just past the midway point between first and second. We school our girls to run after a strikeout and wait for the coach to stop them. We work tagups on flyballs at just about every practice. Had things gone according to plan, our number 6 hitter would have stayed safely at second, moved to third on the throw down to first after the dropped third and scored easily on a tag up after the fly out.
The reason I'm telling you this story is because the mistakes made which cost us the game were coaches' and parents' mistakes. The players were not to blame. This was not a champ9ionship or elimination game. It was a friendly. It was also the first time my team had ever played together. But the way it was played, it very well could have been a championship game. And we need to take away from the loss everything we can in order to make the team better. It should not go unmentioned that the reason I'm writing this is more for my team and myself than anything else. I will explain that in a minute.
Let me delve into the reasons why things played out as they did. First of all, we do, as I said, drill the kids to pick up the third base coach. We do that in practice. This particular kid has not been to many of our practices because she is involved in many other activites, including school softball and other sports. So she was not there the many times we had the girls run from first to third while picking up the base coach. We get good attendance at practice. Out of a roster of really 12, we usually get 10 or 11. But this girl frequently is not there because of her activities and it hurt the team although without her hit, we wouldn't have been it anyway.
Secondly, the girl who struck out knows to run to first. I saw her do it a few innings earlier. But in that instance, she was a little awkward anbd the catcher caught the ball cleanly. We all chuckled. She got self-conscious. That caused the momentary hesitation which allowed the catcher to tag her out though it didn't matter anyway because we had no baserunner who would have moved up. But after the first strikeout, I should have approached the girl and told her not to get heady about what just happened, that she had done the right thing and that's what i want her to do the next time. That was a c oaching failure.
Also, I should have made a point of talking with the girl who had been out at third to impress her with the fact that she does not make a lot of baserunning decisions. Those are in my hands. I have told our team that when they follow instructions and they are out, they are not at fault but when they do not follow instructions, it doesn't matter that they are safe.
After the game, the father of the girl who hit the ball to the fence and then was tagged out at third approached me and apologized that his kid had not held. He said the girl is used to her school coach who is unreliable in terms of her role as a thirdbase coach. When she plays school ball, she feels like she is on her own on the basepaths. I can understand that but this is not school ball. And it is important for a parent to impress that fact on their daughter. Also, more effort needs to b e made to make practices or perhaps the kid ought to think about not playing travel softball. I do not want to see that happen in this case but I am trying to give you, the reader, some food for thought. Your daughters need to be at practice.
As a final, final comment, I want to explain why I felt it necessary to provide the details of our loss the other day. We need to learn from our mistakes. More learning is done because of mistakes, because of losses, than can ever be done as a result of victories. Coaches need to understand why they got smoked, why they lost by a few runs to an inferior team, and why they lost great games by one run. They need to be ready to accept the blame for losses while giving credit for any victory exclusively to the players. Parents need to understand where their role is in this. When driving away friom the fields, they need to speak guardedly about how things went down.
Recently, at a 14U game in which my daughter participated which ended 2-0, the team which lost did not have much opportunity to score but the one big shot they had was blown. There were two outs with runner on second and the score 1-0 at this point. The batter had two strikes on her and hit a tweener bloop to right. It fell. The runner at second, a fast kid, went halfway, held, and returned to the bag when the ball came in.
This girl has not played a lot of travel ball. She didn't know what to do in the situation. You can see that as an unforgivable mistake and it might be, had the girl been playing a long time and had this been an elimination game - it was a friendly. I'd prefer to view this as an opportunity to teach. the girl should be pulled aside right then if possible, after the inning in any event, and definitely after the game or at the next practice and it should be explained to her that she should have been standing on home when that ball hit the ground.
I have seen the same sort of mistake from a high school team which is ranked in the top 20 in my state. It almost cost the team a game. It occurs to me that once, probably long ago, this girl was in a game like the one my daughter played. She was on base with two outs and somebody hit a bloop. She went halfway and didn't proceed like she should have. Nobody corrected her or brought the subject up again. They just assumed she would learn from it.
For your information, in case you don't see it, when you are on base, you get a running lead. With the count 3-2, you don't stop on your lead. You proceed to the next base since you cannot be doubled up. If the batter has two strikes on her, you lead and if you hear the bat meet ball, you proceed the same way you do on a 3-2 count. In the case described, the girl should have taken off for third, rounded the bag and focused only on her base coach, who by the way was in full wheel mode though the girl never so much as looked at him. She might not have made it home before that ball landed. But most likely she would have scored. That would actually have been better since most likely they would have tried to make a play on her and the batter would have been on second!
Coaches need to analyze exactly what happened in all games, win or lose, and decide what their take-aways are going to be. Then at the next practice, they need to discuss the mistakes, explain that the object of practicing is to improve upon mistakes and then design drills to addresss any shortcomings. I think, in our case, it would also be useful to emphasize how well they played but that we are going to see other games like this and when those games are elimination or championship ones, we are really going to want to win them. One of my main focal points is something I got from Jessica Mendoza when she said she tried every day to just get a little bit better. I can tell this team that they played very well, especially for a first time out on the field, but if we're going to be as good as we can be, we will need to improve just a little bit each time.
So, that is my piece for the day. To wrap it up, I'm talking about elements which are truly game changers. Coaches, parents and players are all participants in this process. Each can make a difference in the outcome of a game. If we walk away victorious, that goes to the players. If we lose, that is probably on the coaches. Hopefully the parents only factor in via positive ways but you'll get no credit. Of course, you're used to that. I know I am.Labels: coaching, parenting
Permanent Link: Game Changers
Talk It Up, Ladies
by Dave
Friday, April 17, 2009
Chatter! That's what we used to call it. You know all those silly phrases, "hey batter batter," "this kid can't hit," "come on now, go get him (her)." There are any number of things you can say on a ball field which qualify as "chatter." The important thing is to be noisy and get into the head of the other team by telling them that you are REALLY into this game. For some reason, I just don't hear as much chatter in youth tournament fastpitch softball as I would expect. We've just got to do better.
If you have ever watched the US team play against the likes of Japan, Australia, etc., you know what softball chatter is. The Japanese are particularly good at it. My kids often get a huge kick out of these telecasts as the Japanese team is loud and incessant in their chatter. Of course, my kids have no idea what the Japanese players are saying because they don't speak Japanese. They just think it is funny. On the other hand, my young kids don't seem to get IT when it comes to the chatter.
Any of us who has young girls running around the house knows they have voices. We know they are quite capable of talking up a blue streak. Any of us who has tried to be heard in an early season practice - before order is restored and enforced - knows that the girls on our team are quite capable of making lots of noise. But for whatever reason, while they are capable of creating an absolute din at completely inappropriate times and places, they get outdoors in a setting which demands noise and they become mute monks!
Now, I've written about the organized cheering which often pervades youth tournament ball. That is not one of my favorite sounds. I get that organized cheers like "while you were pickin your nose, she was up on her toes, she stole on you blah blah blah" play an important role in focusing players' attention. Today I do not wish to talk about that sort of thing. Today I'm more interested in garden variety chatter - the kind of thing one routinely hears at baseball games, even youth baseball games.
Truth be told, all the better teams at higher levels of girls softball, be they high school, ASA, or some such, do in fact engage in the practice of chatter. I went to watch a HS game the other day and one team in particular was very loud and incessant in their noise making. They were cheering on their hitters, encouraging their fielders, and just plain flat out making noise. The outcome of the game did not turn on the noise making - the noisier team did not necessarily win. But one thing is for sure, nobody who was in attendance ever questioned the noisy team's enthusiasm or focus. When from the moment of the first pitch all the way to the last out, a team makes noise, it is clear that they are into the game. While it may not make a difference say to who wins the game many times, it does tell one's opponent that the noisy team has come to play ball. And nobody in their right mind can challenge that premise.
I watched tryouts for a gold team several years ago. About 80 girls were run through drills. Not one of these girls was asked to return. In fact, I believe the coaches running them through the drills knew all along that nobody from this group was going to make it. They had already pretty much hand-picked their team. The girls who were at this tryout had come to an open thing without any such invitation. Still the coaches poked and prodded, tested and encouraged, put the girls through the paces at full speed. One of the elements of this tryout which sticks out in my mind was some advice one of the coaches gave to the girls waiting for their turn in the drills.
The coach told the girls who were waiting their turns to "Talk it up. Don't be afraid to yell encouragement to that girl because you believe you might be competing with her for a position on our roster. This is softball. It's noisy. if you want to prove to me that you know how to play this game, let me hear you like you are a real player."
I thought this was sound advice. Any time you see a real team playing, the girls are all yelling for each other no matter what happens. This is even more true when you see a quality college team play. The noise level is higher than one would hear next to a busy freeway. The girls use everything they have to encourage each other, to show the opponent that they came to play, and to try to unnerve the opposing pitcher.
Certainly there are high school and college teams which are virtually silent during games but I believe most of the better teams are noisy. Certainly there are youth tournament teams which can make quite a racket but most of the time this consists of those organized cheers which many of us have come to dread. Most of the youth tournament teams I have observed act as if they are attending a wake. Every now and again, somebody yells encouragement to the girl up to bat or on base, especially if that girl happens to be their best friend on the team. But that's not enough. That's not what we're after.
So how does one go about getting a team to make real noise during games? For one thing, it would be best if somebody would explain this to the team collectively and individually. Secondly, I think that this fundamental aspect of the game is just like every other fundamental. You have to practice it. And third, just like other fundamentals, coaches need to remind kids that they should be doing it.
It would probably be best if the girls were able to see it themselves in action. This is one of the minor reasons I believe we should take our daughters, our teams, any girl to go watch the highest quality play we can find. There are a ton og HS gamers around this time of year. if you spend any time with a newspaper, you should quickly be able to identify which are the better teams. From there all you really need to do is try to get out to see games when two pretty good teams are playing against each other. As the HS season wears on, there are going to be tournaments for locations like county and state as well as conferences. Once you get past the quarter finals, things get fairly heated fairly quickly. Because there are so many games out there, you ought to be able to find time to fit one of the better ones in. And hopefully, if you do, you and more importantly your girls will be able to see how real ball players conduct themselves - make noise.
Next, I think when we have practices close to our season, we ought to take note of whether our girls are cheering each other on. If they are not, it might be a good idea to let them know that you are not hearing them and would prefer if they made a little noise. i would strongly encourage telling them to yell for each other in batting practice, base running drills, whatever. I would explain to them that like being cheered for and what they should try to do is give what they would want to receive. An individual can even think to themselves that what they are saying for another is really what they mean for themselves. Basically, whatever you can do to make the girls make a little noise is a good thing.
I would go so far as to stop practices at appropriate times and tell your team that they are not making enough noise for each other and you know they can do better. What you want to avoid, however, is the condition in which you are constantly the cue card for noise-making. This is all like being in a good ready position on every pitch. No coach wants to continuously hear himself or herself telling their team to "get ready." if you are doing that, you've done a poor job of teaching the girls during practices. What we tell girls is "if you are going to walk out onto the softball field, if you are going to call yourself a softball player, if you are not 10 years old, then as the pitcher begins her motion, you simply must get intoi a good ready position ... on every single pitch. if I have to tell you to get ready, you are not ready, you are not a ballplayer, you are going to get hurt ou there." This same principle applies to making noise. If you want to consider yourself a softball team, a good one, and you are not making noise all the time, guess again, because all the good teams constantly make noise.
I can relate to coaches who would prefer that their teams not constantly give them headaches but lets be real here. If your team is perfectly orchestrated, if everyone has their skills intact, if you are really playing great ball right now, what does all that matter when you come up against another team doing similarly but the other team never shuts up?
Let me put it another way, if your team is at the top of their game and from the first moment of the first pitch they are louder than the other team, what does this say about you? IMHO, what it says about you is the follwing:
1) This is not our first game. We have been playing this game for a long time and we are used to winning.
2) We get excited to play because we like to play. We are not just used to winning, we are used to running up the score. We are used to this game being very exciting and our team is going to hit, run and score on you.
3) We expect to win every game we play. We don;t merely think we are as good as you, we know it. We expect to beat you!
There are other aspects a team says about itself when it is noisy but I think those are the important ones. Confidence is a funny thing, it often spills over into success. Talking it up shows you are confident. talking it up tells your opponent that you are there to play.
So let's get out there this weekend and make some noise. Talk it up girls!Labels: attitude, coaching, game strategy, mental toughness, youth tournament teams
Permanent Link: Talk It Up, Ladies
Ten Percent
by Dave
Sunday, February 22, 2009
At the beginning of practice, I was standing there in front of my 12 year old charges and wondering what one thing I might teach them that would have an impact on their enjoyment of the game. It was difficult to come up with one particular thing. There are so many different skills and we work on most of them. But I try not to do the same things over and over again. I try to devise drills which work the same skills but I don't want to just get into the rut of 15 minutes of this, 10 of that, and, boom, we're done. I like to have them spend at least one third of our practice time doing some drill that they have never done before. What to do? What to do? Look at ten percent, of course!
If I think hard about the overall experience of tournament softball, I realize that we play about 60+ games and usually win something like more than half of them, say an overall record of about 35-25. In a good year, we might win as many as 40. In a bad one, we could lose as many as 45.Lest I get a bunch of e-mails informing me that a 40-20 year should not be considered a huge success, my personal philosophy is, if somehow I manage to bring a team to say 55-5, I would probably injure my shoulder patting myself on the back about what a great coach I am. And I would have to chew myself out for not scheduling a good enough season for the girls to grow by playing better competition and gaining the experience of learning about losing.
No matter what kind of team we have, no matter what kind of year we are having, of these 60+ games, probably about ten percent of the games end up being one run affairs. It may be a little more or a little less. But the bottom line is we lose a lot of these one run games. If we could win a few more our year would be more of a success.
So start with my assumption of a range of annual results of 15-45 to 40-20 as being a goal for the year assuming a given level of age, strength and general talent. The question I had was how to teach my team something in winter workouts that would enhance their enjoyment of the game. I'm not really interested so much in increasing the win total but that certainly is a factor.
So looking back at the 10% of our games (6-10) which are won and lost by a single run, I guess we win about 1 or 2 of those. We pretty much go about a range of 2-4 to 3-7 If we could win another 2 or 3, well, that would be something.
Of all the games I have watched in our age category, I'd say the vast majority of one run games end as a result of one of two things, defensive error or an aggressive base running play. We've talked quite a bit about defense over the years and I'd prefer to get into the offensive side of things today. The aspect of the game which wins most of these one run games is aggressive base-running, successful aggressive base-running.
When I think of base-running success and failure, it very seldom involves a player being put out by a full second or getting in safely long before the ball arrives. Rather, it is usually bang-bang, a split second difference between out and safe, winning and losing. I'll randomly pick a number which I think represents the difference between out and safe. My number is one tenth of a second.
One tenth (ten percent) of a second is not real long. You cannot see something and process it completely within that time period. You really need two of them to do that. But still, the difference between safe and out is typically, at least most of the time, one tenth of a second.
For this reason, if we had to identify one thing which might enhance the overall experience in girls fastpitch softball, it is running speed. I told my team, "if one of you can improve your running speed over 60 feet by one tenth of a second, it will make the difference between us winning or losing at least one one-run game during the coming year. At some point we are going to be playing a one run game and somebody is going to need to steal a base or advance one additional base or score a run on a close play. And because that someone (I don't know who) got one tenth of a second faster, we will win that game. Now, that game might be an elimination game. We will play at least ten of those during the year, probably more, maybe twenty or so of them. And that one tenth of a second improvement one of you makes is going to provide one additional game for the team. That game might make the difference between earning a trophy or not. There's no way for me to tell. But if each of you make it your job to improve one tenth of a second, I believe that most likely all of you will improve at least one tenth. As a result, we will win lots more games AND, whether we win or lose, we will definitely have more fun doing it!" So the question is, what can we do to get that improvement. The answer is both simple and complicated.
First of all, kids do not run nearly as much today as they did 40 years ago. Most kids don't do as we did when we were kids. Instead of being out on the town, they are busy playing guitar heroes or checking in via networking sites, text messages, etc. to see what their friends are doing. They stop "playing" outside by the time they are 10, maybe even 8 in some cases. Just as their potential for running fast is getting into gear, they begin sitting around an awful lot.
I was not the fastest kid around by a wide margin. My recollection is of doing a 4.8 forty yard dash at 14 and something faster than that as I matured physically. I learned to run the old fashioned way, to avoid beatings. When I was about 10, I was out in the 'hood picking on some kid with my best friend. That kid had more friends than we apparently knew about, more older, bigger, tougher friends. One or two of them spied us picking on him and chased us down. My friend was very fast and he escaped. I wasn't quite fast enough and learned the taste of the water in our run-off brook as a result.
Then there was the other best friend I had at about 11. He had two older brothers, two older brothers with nothing but time on their hands and nothing much to do with it, except beat up their brother's friends. There were only two options, run or get beat up.
Finally there was yet another friend I had a year or so later who had this propensity during the winter months of forming snowballs with the exclusive intention of throwing them at state police cars. He was another fast kid.
So when the cop caught me, he was nowhere to be found. After juvenile court I realized I had two choices, stop hanging around with that kid or get faster. By the way, when the state cop first emerged from his cruiser, he said something which has stuck in my head for these many decades. He looked at us and said, "boys, I run the hundred yard dash in under 11 so, run if you must, but know that I will enjoy chasing you down." I'm pretty convinced that my friend was under 11 too. I think I clocked about 11.1!
That's how I learned to run and those opportunities are either completely undesirable or not available in healthy enough portions, pick your own poison. Besides, girls didn't face the same sort of environ when I was young and they pretty much don't to this day. They have to learn to run in a modern way.
If we break down the many aspects of running and identify just a few which girls (really both boys and girls), as a general rule, do not do very well, I think what we are left with are first step, arm motion, and stride length. The first step is absolutely critical. Arm motion propels us in ways most kids don't seem to know about. And when we try to run fast, apparently, our first instinct is to shorten the stride length and increase turnover rather than making sure we take long strides.
So, I decided to run a couple drills with the girls to work on these aspects of their games. Before I began each, I explained to them why we were doing it. I asked each girl to stand before the group and get in a base-running ready position. All ready positions are essentially the same but with base-running as opposed to fielding, you, obviously do not have a glove on and your hands should be out at your sides for balance. To be clear, when we talk about base running ready position, we mean the position you would take up after taking those first three strides off the bag after the pitch is released - not what we were talking about the other day. At first I asked each girl to just get into this ready position. Later we would take those first few steps and then get into base-running ready position.
When each girl was in the ready position I asked the group to watch them, focusing on their feet. Then I would subtly point in one direction or the other and have them take their first step ion that direction while the group watched. After each went through this, we stopped to discuss what we had just done. The first question for the group was did we all really get into a ready position? Was our butt down, our back up straight at this angle (say ballpark 70 degrees), our legs bent and knees loose so we could go in either direction quickly? We talked about this for a minute.
Once we had that ironed out (for the umpteenth time), the next layer was the first step. Generally there was no set pattern to our girls' first steps. They did not all do it with the same foot. If you are running to your right, you should take a very short step (not realy even a step but more like a shuffle) with your right foot and then a crossover with your left. The opposite is true if you are going back to the bag - running to your left. Some of our girls took the first short/shuffle step and some did not. Some kept their weight balanced properly, some did not. Some got off well and some nearly fell.
Just to be clear, the "first step," that shuffle step, is really part of the balancing act. What you want to accomplish is a foot position which suits being able to push off properly with the foot in the direction you are running. You can't do that with toes pointing in front of you - towards homeplate. You end up pushing off the outside of your foot and this is bad for both knee and foot. Rather, you want your toes pointing at least more closely towards the target direction. This way you can push off the toes and ball of your foot. You also want tio shift more of your weight over that foot as you shuffle it. And finally, you want to bend your knee slightly more so you can get that push off right after the crossover step. So the very first motion is a shuffle or slide of the foot into the right position. This is followed by a crossover step which should then be followed by a full, powerful stride.
Our drill was what I might call "non-wind sprints" or "anti-wind sprints." We set girls up at a mythical base, had them leave the base on pitch release, get out to the ready position, take those first two steps and then explode into the third and/or fourth. Thats it, end of drill rep. We did not wish to tire the girls or work their muscles to exhaustion. What we wanted was a motor memory exercise in which the first step began to become part of their repertoire. We did a lot of these because they are quick and easy. We plan to do lots more because this, before anything else has a very great potential of knocking one tenth of a second off anyone's running speed on the bases. I suppose you can and should do the same kind of thing with respect to getting out of the batter's box but I'll leave that for another day.
So, that was our first drill and we ended it by basically the same discussion which preceded it. I told the girls that if they want to improve their games on their own, outside of practice, they could do the same drill anytime, anyplace of their own choosing. I again explained that one tenth of a second by any of us might get us an extra win, an extra game, perhaps a trophy. I told them that they needed to do this exercise about 3,000 times before they might improve that one tenth and we had just done about 100 of those 3,000 so they each have plenty to do.
Our next exercise involved running while using our arms as much as possible, exaggerating the arm motion. While I certainly wanted each kid to improve their arm motion, I really wanted each to become convinced that arm motion makes you faster. So we ran casually for a distance of say 60 feet while moving our arms really hard as our legs leisurely went through the run, really a jog. The effect was each girl was able to feel the pull of the arm motion done properly. We ran several reps of this. I asked each one to tell me if they could feel the pull. When all had and we had done several iterations, we moved to running a little faster while, again, exaggerating our arm motion. In between iterations of each kid running, I told them again and again that their arms held the power to make their feet and legs go further and faster. I closed the drill by reiterating the one tenth of a second stuff and explained that from this point forward I needed them to remember to use their arms as much as possible when they run. Whenever we run, we go back to that day and correct girls using their arms improperly.
Our next drill was focused on stride length. We do several things that are intended to indirectly improve stride length like power skips and running with high knees, but those drills, while certainly strengthening our girls legs and probably making them faster, do not put the idea of lengthening the stride into our girls' heads. They may run a bit better but they aren't conscious of what they should be focusing on - improving stride length. So I figured I had better explain things and then do something to make them more conscious of how they run.
We decided to run over the same 60 foot course but this time I had the girls count their strides from one end to the other. After each run, I asked each kid to tell me how many strides. Some at first said 10, and some had as many as 12. As we did more of these, I think the girls got the idea that if they all said the same number, then nobody would stand out for correction or questioning. What we got was one rep in which each and every girl said 11 strides! Then this happened again and again, three times consecutively. The next time through, I decided to count for myself. The range was something more like 10 to 13 strides. And each girl again claimed 11!
At this point, I felt it necessary to explain to the team collectively that when we do these drills, we are not performing some sort of test which will yield a final marking period grade that will appear on a report card to their parents. I told them, "this team has all kinds of girls, tall and short, long legged and short legged. Also, our running styles vary quite a bit. So it is impossible that everyone takes the same number of strides over 60 feet of running. I know this intinctively but I also happen to be counting as you run so don't kid a kidder. Many of you said 11 and took 12 or 13. What is the purpose in that?" I explained about being honest and that just giving your best effort is actually all I am looking for. After this, the numbers came in a bit more truthfully.
After this, I told them I wanted them to work towards cutting down their strides by one over the 60 feet. I told them that the way to do this was to explode in their running and reaching up and out with their knees. Yes, it does take more energy to run that way. No, it is not immediately apparent to any individual that they are running faster when they do this. But the stopwatch has something else entirely to say about it. Typically when we take longer strides, our time is about one tenth of a second faster than it would otherwise be. If we run like that every time, each of us will have already improved by our goal amount.
After these three drills were done and explained, I got the girls together for one final discussion before we got serious about practicing. I reiterated the idea of us being a far better team with far better results if just one of us improved one tenth of a second. Then I explained that if each of us works realy hard to accomplish these three things every time we run, most likely each of us is going to improve three tenths of a second. Then I asked, how good are we going to be if each of us gets to the next base that much more quickly? All of them smiled and you could see in their eyes that they were thinking about it.
Fastpitch softball is not merely pithed fast, it is played fast. Speed determines the outcome of more games than we can imagine. If you play good enough competition to win half your games, how much better would it be if you won say 35 out of 60 instead and had the chance to play for a championship here or there? How much better would your year be if you could play just a few more Sunday games? You can get there by working on running technique more than you do now. Maybe you've got better drills in mind than the ones I have laid out for you. If so, great. If not, use mine until you come up with something better. But the point is, teach your girls to run well. You'll not only improve your win-loss record, you'll also be enhancing their enjoyment of the game while getting them ready for success at the next level.Labels: baserunning, coaching, Offense, pre-season preparation
Permanent Link: Ten Percent
The Softball Classroom
by Dave
Monday, November 10, 2008
I want to propose an approach to winter workouts which I think many will consider a little unorthodox. It is unorthodox mostly in the sense that few travel ball teams routinely do it. Yet, if you think about it, it makes complete sense and is really a very simple concept. Sometimes what is simple and makes sense alludes us in our day to day, month to month struggles to prepare a team for competition. Yet standing back, using our common sense, and doing something simple, yet unorthodox, often yields more results than we would have anticipated.
The problem is working the team out to get them ready for the spring in sometimes rather cramped quarters. At least for those of us living in cold climates, that is often the most difficult task. We deal with the problem by renting all sorts of expensive or inadequate indoor spaces, raising money to pay for the space, and improvising any available facilities to get a little work in. In a few cases in which the leadership of the team or organization is well hooked up, we get more than adequate facilities for modest prices. But most of the time, we struggle to fit meaningful drills into overpriced, tight spaces. We often fail in our task and then, when we are again outdoors, finally cover most of the ground we hoped to during the winter.
I have been involved with several teams which went inside after fall with high hopes of making real progress. By March, just about every team is ecstatic to get back outside so they can conduct real practices. They spent significant time crafting a list of drills, got inside and, for one reason or another, had to eliminate many or most of them because the space could not accomodate the work they wanted to do. They did some important skills work indoors but always ended up feeling that the physical constraints prevented a complete job. The team is not ready when they finally get back outside in the spring.
I don't have a magic potion to make indoor work more meaningful. I have no technological device or special list of drills which improve a team's ability to conduct practice in a 40 by 40 foot, ten foot high space, run batting practice while using baseball pitching machines in small, cramped netted cages, or otherwise prepare a team to go out onto a real field after trying to work on skills in some tiny elementary school gymnasium. But I'd like to bring up an obvious approach we sometimes forget about in this sport, especially at lower level youth tournament levels.
What I want to discuss is the usefulness of conducting classroom work. What I mean is the team, rather than running physical drills, sits around a table in a small room and is taught important things about the game in general, specific strategies planned to be employed by the team, signs and signals, or just about anything else you can imagine which requires mental preparation rather than physical.
In order to do classroom work, you obviously need a place to function as a classroom. But such space is often far easier to arrange than other kinds of space. I don't suggest getting a side room at some Fudruckers, to take over the meeting room at a Frozen Ropes or another athletic facility. There are too many distractions and you'll lose the kids while you are trying to instruct them on some important point. Small church basements can suffice and are often pretty cheap to arrange. Sometimes the local school will allow you to use or rent a classroom. And with just say 12 girls, you might even be able to conduct some classroom sessions at one of your player's homes. What you need is enough space for the girls not to be in each other's laps, a little quiet and no distractions out in the open.
The second consideration is organization and conduct. Coaches cannot wing classroom sessions as they often do indoor and outdoor physical practices. If the coaches need to discuss what they want to do next, it is easy when doing physical practices to send the girls on a busy task so you can talk it over. You cannot do that in a classroom. You have to be organized and have a lesson plan. The best time coaches will spend is in a pre-classroom meeting in which they hash out what needs to get covered inside the classroom, develop a "lesson plan" and then break out the responsibilities for who is going to discuss what. An hour spent in an initial coaches meeting will pay off in saving several wasted hours in the classroom.
Coaches most also consider the nature of their audience, their students, their team. 12U girls have much better attention spans than fidgety 10s. 14s are more mature than 12s but they also are far more social, not to mention better at not paying attention during class time. 16s can sort of resent being forced to sit in a classroom on a Saturday, and shut up and listen when the context is softball. 18s generally have a better understanding of the necessity of classroom type work but you need to hold their attention too.
Just as you try to make things move along rapidly in a physical practice, you must also keep it moving in the classroom. If a couple players get bored, you are going to lose the whole team pretty soon thereafter. If you end up spending too much time on one subject or one type of subject, somebody is going to get bored and then perhaps start disrupting the whole group. In the classroom, you can't allow someone to disrupt the group and while you certainly can remove someone who is deliberately being disruptive, you also have to take some of the blame on yourselves for not keeping everyone's interest.
I suggest establishing a policy for the conduct of classroom work right from the first sitdown. Let the team know what your goals are for these sessions, that you understand they are used to softball practice being more physical and fun than mental and boring, that you will try to not make the material boring, but that sometimes you may not keep their interest and in those cases, they are not allowed to fool around or talk among themselves. In fact, once we get started (when a coach says, "OK, let's get started"), there is no more talking among yourselves. The only talking allowed is A) the coaches, B) players asking or answering a question, or C) when somebody says something confusing or you didn't hear what was said.
Coaches could allow for five to ten minutes before starting to allow the girls to chat with each other and then, after the session, either plan some social stuff or at least allow the kids to chat for a while before running home. If you use pizza parties for team chemistry building, have one of these immediately after classroom sessions. That provides motivation for the girls to focus during the sessio,n to get to the pizza party afterwards more quickly.
Another policy position is to not allow players to be late. Perhaps the most disruptive thing that can happen during a clasroom session involves the "student" walking in five to ten minutes after you have started. She comes in and everything grinds to a halt. She takes off her coat, looks around for a seat, finds one near her best friend, sits down and chats briefly with the girl she just finished texting with for four hours straight. This process takes about 5 minutes and in the end, you may actually be able to get started again but you must now go back over the ten minutes worth of material you covered before the disruption! One player arriving late has cost you 15 minutes and you may never again get the kids' attention. So, "we start at 6:00. You must arrive by 6:00. If you are late or your parent is pulling into the parking spot at 5:59, please turn around and go home because you will not be allowed into the classroom. Of course you don't need to be perfectly strict about this policy since you aren't actually going to start until 6:10, after the girls have chatted for a few minutes. But what you do not want to habitually happen is the same girl walking in at 6:15 each and every session.
It is always the same girls who come late to these things, as well as practices. That's completely inconsiderate and shows disdain for teammates. But it happens. As an aside, coaches should always remember that more than half the time, it is not the kid's fault. Usually, it is the parent's fault for not recognizing that their kid is always disorganized at that hour or because the parent themselves sees arriving late as acceptable. And browbeating the kid usually does not achieve the desired result. You can certainly tell the kid that "you're late" but you also need to make the parent understand that their kid is repeatedly late, this dirupts the whole team, and it cannot continue. It is not fair to the team and needs to be rectified. Please come on time or your daughter will not be allowed into the class.
Of course, lateness when addressed by the coach is often met with the litany of excuses. "She has ballet before practice." "We needed to hire a special tutor for her and this is the only time she can come." "The dog got out and was raiding the neighbors chicken coop - I couldn't leave until I got her back into the house, sorry." We've all heard all the excuses at one time or another. Lateness is not allowed, excuse or no excuse. This is not an easy task but, if you want to accomplish anything, you must address it, particularly when we are dealing with classroom settings.
By addressing lateness and rectifying the situation, if you can, you are really doing the kid a favor. Many high school and college teachers will not tolerate lateness. Work bosses will often dock a worker for lateness. Many sports coaches will punish repeated latecomers, sometimes severely. The 9 or 10 year old who walks into practice or a classroom late repeatedly and is embarrassed at that age about tardiness will come to learn that she can survive being late - the world does not come crashing down on her when she is late. Thereafter, she'll not be particularly worried about being on time until, long after the habit is established, her high school coach benches her for it. So, when you consider all that time you spent trying to teach her to field a grounder or make a strong, quick throw just so she would make her high school team, consider dealing with her lateness for the same reason.
Lastly, while I understand that there is a value to taking notes, that value is lessened when too many notes are required to be written down by students. Coaches need to prepare materials for their players, perhaps even structure them into a notebook by running out to the office superstore and buying some floppy folders and then handing out materials which are already hole punched for easy insertion.
Everything you might talk about in these sessions is capable of being put down in some logical form on paper. Usually you can make copies fairly cheaply. Folders will cost the team less than a dollar apiece and can form the backbone of what is essentially a playbook. If your players do not really need to make notes but rather can simply look at papers you hand out, your classroom work will progress much more quickly which should help you to keep everyone's attention.
Regarding the classroom sessions themselves, let's remember that all human beings learn through repetition. In fastpitch softball, we use repetition more than any other device. You field 50 grounders, take 50 swings, make 100 throws, etc. We understand the concept of "motor memory" and no matter what the softball environment, we use the tool of repetition to improve players' skills. While neuro-muscular pathways do not get worked in the classroom, we still need to use repetition.
For reasons that are unclear to me, American education has moved away from repetition. Teachers don't want to utilize any sort of boring, tedious drills like multiplication tables. They seek instead to teach "reasoning" to achieve an answer.
Early on, my wife and I recognized the shortcomings of this approach and worked to supplement what our kids were doing with respect to, for example, multiplication tables. We signed up (and paid through the nose) for one of those supplemental self-study courses which involves repeated, consistent drilling. At first our approach caused some problems when, for example, the math teachers wanted my kids to explain how they arrived at the answer of 56 for the problem, what is 8 times 7. We actually had to teach our kids to say things like "well, 8 is an even number so the answer has to be even, and seven plus seven is 14 and 4 fourteens is 56." My kids got bored with this so after a while we told them to answer, "my parents made me commit the multiplication tables to memory so when I look on the paper and see 7 times 8, my brain automatically spits out 56." Obviously, our kids tests sometimes caused us to need to have a parent-teacher conference to explain the smug answers but, in the end, their answers got them the grades they were seeking.
I digress but my point is repetition is necessary in the classroom whether that classroom is mathematics or fastpitch softball. Repetition is undeniably boring when not conducted thoughtfully. Our kids' math repetition involved 15 minutes a day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year. It was short and frequent. The same concept should be employed in softball classroom work.
If, for example, you are going to go over signs to the batter, you should do that work in every classroom session but for a short duration each time. The same can be said for each particular important situational defense play you want to employ. We'll get to some specific "lessons" momentarily but for now, I just want you to understand that we do not want to go over first and third once in session number 3 and never come back to it again. We must repeat specific lessons several times so the kids actually learn them or the whole effort is one big waste of time.
We must consider attention spans when we develop lessons. It doesn't so much matter whether you are contemplating an outdoor, on the field, defensive drill for bunts, or a discussion of how we defense bunts in the classroom. We cannot run a single drill or engage in a single discussion for an hour straight. Particularly in the classroom, you must go over material fairly quickly for a short duration, take a deep breath and then move to another, perhaps related subject.
You may spend more time initially when you first go over something just as it takes longer to set things up the first time we do some particular outdoor drill. But definitely the next time you go over this material, you need to move quickly and go on to something else. All the while, you need to consider your players' attention spans. This pertains to each segement in the lesson plan as well as the length of the overall classroom session.
I do not think you should stick with one subject for longer than a long inning - 10 to 15 minutes. It would be best if you could get through a topic in a normal half inning - 3 to 5 minutes. And the whole indoor classroom session cannot be longer than a game. Ideally, it would be an hour or less. You can't get anything real done in under a half hour, probably more like 45 minutes. So a full class might be 45 minutes to an hour - schedule an hour and a half, and plan to finish classrom work in 45 minutes. Give the kids five to ten minutes to get in, sit down and settle. Then announce, "let's get started, wse have a lot to cover and the better you poay attention, the sonner we'll get done which will allow you girls to talk and fool arounds." Plan something afterwards like pizza or Twister, if you can. Then plan say 5 distinct subjects to go over during that session. Now do it and hopefully finish in 45 minutes.
At this point, I think it would be best if I started getting into specifics about what a classroom session might consist of.
The first, most obvious, discussion is offensive signs and strategies. For whatever reason, signs often get less attention than they deserve. We bring them up in the fall, give the kids a few key signs at one of our practices, and then use them at a couple games. Sometime during the winter, we circulate a list of signs via some Word document, ask the parents to print it out and go over them with their kids. Some parents do and some do not. Then we get into our first tournament and the batter doesn't so much as look at the coach to get the sign! The second batter looke down and gets the sign, calls timeout and runs to the coach to ask what the heck all that stuff means. Then, at our next practice, we spend five minutes going over signs again. At our next tournament, we get upset about nobody looking down for signs, this kid or that apprently getting it but not doing what you told her, etc., etc. and so forth.
In the classroom, it is important to tell the kids that they must look for signs on every pitch. Very quickly, you might explain that batters are allowed to take one foot out of the box after each pitch - but often not two unless you get chased out of the box by a pitch or play. Tell the girls you want them, after every pitch, to take out their front foot and look down to the coach fo the sign. Sure, often, there is no sign or the only one is "you're on your own" but they must look every time and then signal back to the coach that they received it.
That discussion, in case you've got a stopwatch or are otherwise trying to gauge subject duration should last about a minute. It should be repeated at every classroom session. Next go over the signs beginning with indicators and wipe-offs. If your kids learn nothing else, they should learn to always look for a sign, know when one is actually being put on, via indicator, and know that the coach can erase one via this third type of sign. Then you can hand out page one of their notebook, the signs and put that into the folder. You are two to three minutes into the session, you have gone over the basics of signs and handed out the signs. Now, very quickly go over them. Then maybe a one minute quiz to make sure everyone gets the idea. "OK, gang, that's it for that. We will definitely go over these again - don't lose your notebook, go over these at home."
Remember, you will go over these again in future sessions. At a later date, the whole thing should probably be done in under two minutes. One day, you might split the group into two or three "teams," tell them to put away their notebooks and then start giving them signs, asking what did I just signal you to do and award points to each "team" according to how many they get right.
Right after offensive signs, you might go into some more advanced offensive topics like your particular team's offensive philosophy. Some of you parents and coaches may not be aware that many teams actually have a specific philosophy. Some of you may not realize that the team you coach actually has a specific philosophy. What many coaches fail to recognize is that the girls on their team, unless they have been together for two years or more, may get confused over offensive philosophies.
One girl, new to the team, runs between bases in under 3 seconds. She burns. She's like lightning. She also didn't get on base very much last year on her rec all-star team. Her coaches were not particularly sophisticated. They had never seen a delayed steal, let alone run one. They were not aggressive and didn't like small ball. They wanted the girls to hit. So while this girl was sitting in the dugout after striking out 8 times one day, the best she could do was watch the game. And when another girl, her best friend, did something aggressive on the bases and was thrown out, the only thing this really fast girl learned was, you get yelled at if you are overly aggressive. Now she is on your team and she carries that baggage with her. You picked her because you want her to steal, steal, steal, and then steal some more. But she won't unless you tell her that nobody on this team is going to get yelled at if they are aggressive on the bases. And you'll need to be specific. You'll need rules of thumb everyone can use in games.
I remember watching a game in which a runner arrived at third with no outs in the first inning. The coach whispered something to her. He had recognized that the catcher was overly aggressive but didn't have a particularly good arm. He also saw that the third baseman had some difficulty catching balls thrown to her, even more difficulty getting the ball out of her glove after she caught it, and had a weak inaccurate arm. On the first pitch, which was a ball, the runner on third got a little far off the bag. The catcher got up ran a few steps and then whipped the ball down to third where the thirdbaseman was standing waiting for it and the shortstop had also come to cover the bag. The throw, if the runner on third had returned to the bag, would have beaten her. The third baseman and SS bumped into each other and knocked the ball to the ground in front of the third baseman who picked it up with her glove, struggled to get it out into her throwing hand, and threw a weak throw over the catcher's head ... after the girl from third had crossed the plate.
I was standing behind the offensive team's dugout. After the cheering was over, I heard the bench coach call over the girl who had just scored. He began yelling at her. He said, "DON'T YOU EVER DO THAT AGAIN. YOU
ALMOST GOT PICKED OFF. YOU ALMOST COST US A RUN. DON'T EVER DO THAT AGAIN."
The third base coach called to his other coach, "Bob, that was a play. I told her to do that." The bench coach said, "LIKE HELL IT WAS. SHE ALMOST GOT PICKED OFF. I DON'T EVER WANT ANYONE DOING THAT AGAIN." Later, I expect the coaches had it out and came to some agreement. But most likely they never said a word to the kids either collectively or individually. The next time they face a pitcher who doesn't pay attention, a catcher who turns her back, or otherwise find themselves in a situation in which a delayed steal might work, they are not going to recognize that what they did on that day is what caused the play to fail. It wasn't the baserunner's hesitation or lack of speed. They are going to fail on a play and blame the wrong thing. If you do classroom sessions, you have a great opportunity to get everyone on the same page with respect to offensive aggression by explaining it clearly.
Rules of thumb are excellent tools which can be brought up in the classroom, discussed at length, and explained if kids are not clear about them. For example, I am involved with a team on which nobody is so slow that they should not always go when a ball gets behind the catcher. So, having already taught how to lead out on the field, I want to discuss my first rule of thumb. "Girls, after you get your lead, I want you to look and see if the catcher has missed the ball. If she has and it is not on the ground right in front of her, advance a base. You are to go every time. If you're out, you're out but you must go every time. If you hesitate because you are not sure and then are thrown out, you will get yelled at extensively the next practice and then everyone on the team will take turns throwing balls hard at you. So ... just go."
I won't try to exhaust a list of all the rules of thumb you might bring up but they should be consistent with your overall philosophy, be explained alongside the explanation of that philosophy, and provided on paper to be inserted into the notebook. By the way, this is an excellent point to raise the concept of times when rules and strategies might be altered to fit a game situation. You might tell the girls that on occassion, we may play against some really good teams. In those games, we may alter some of our strategies in order to score runs and win. These rules we gave you are always implemented but at some games, we might tell you not to do this or that.
Our next subject area could involve defensive plays against aggressive baserunning teams. For example, I like our kids to play a bunt with runner on first a particular way. First and third pinch in and play the ball. The throw always goes to first with the 2B covering. SS takes second. The fielder who didn't get the bunt proceeds to cover third. Outfielders know their backup responsibilities. The 2B catches the throw, hopefully recording the out and then she immediately throws the ball to the SS covering second. "Girls, that's every time, not just when you think of it or believe you have a shot to get the runner at second. We throw to second every time on every bunt with runner at only first." Then you can explain why and what you hope to accomplish. This can be covered in about a minute and then you move on to what to do with runners on first and second, etc. And, again, give them something on paper they can refer to in the future.
First and third, as well as other, situations can be addressed in the classroom. Sure, you need to do drills. You need to run these things out on the field. But it is far easier and far more productive to run drills and plays when you fully understand what is going on and what you hope to accomplish. Go over these in the classroom and your practices will be better.
Another subject area I know I need to cover in the classroom is pitch calling. About half or more of our roster is pitchers or catchers, at least at one time or another. I might split the group up into two, with non-Ps and Cs going with one coach and all our battery mates coming with me. But that is disruptive in and of itself. Instead, I could have the other girls sit in on a pitch calling session.
It isn't as if pich calling occurs outside the game they play. Why not educate them as well? Why not clue them into the signs and thoughts regarding pitch calls? In later years, they very well may find themselves playing middle infield, looking in for signs, adjusting their play to the pitch, signaling outfielders, or being on the receiving end of those signals. We might just as well tell them what all is going on between coach, pitcher and catcher, let them know the signs too, and further their understanding of what goes on in the game they play. Besides, we are going to move rapidly and not bore anyone. And to a girl who has no idea what is going on between coach, catcher and pitcher, this should be fairly interesting. It will keep her attention.
The list of what you might go over in classroom sessions goes on and on. I repeat that repetition is as important in the classroom as it is on the field. You should plan multiple classroom sessions because they are cheap, pretty short, cover important ground, teach the game to the girls, provide critical information for winning and generally improving your game, and are something which is practiced at high levels in a variety of sports, not to mention most career and business situations when these girls are adults. When you plan out multiple classroom sessions, make it interesting when you are going over ground you went over in lessons 1, 3, 4, etc. Be creative. Have some "quizzes" and games to make sure the learning has sunk in deep.
Do some things which are not strictly speaking conventional classroom activites like watching a tape of an Olympic or college game. Conduct team building exercises. Play twister afterwards or have a pizza party. Make it fun but make it productive time. Teach them the game. Teach them teamwork. Teach them something more than how to field a grounder.
To sports fans, particularly football fans, we all know that athletes at high levels of team sports are forced to sit in classrooms to watch game films, go over plays on the blackboard, or do any number of different things. Basketball, soccer and football players do lots of blackboard work discussing plays. Softball is just as complicated yet we seldom do much classroom work. During the springtime when the temperature outside is 70, we should want to get out and sweat. We shouldn't want or need to sit down indoors to discuss plays. That's especially true if we spent 4, 6 or 8 sessions in January and February doing this. We raise so much money to rent decent space when we can find any. But we forget that we can accomplish much just by sitting down in a room and discussing a lot of what we'll be talking about and doing on the field.
By the way, this is a practice. Parents are not welcome. They can sit in the car but, even if there is free space, they cannot come in and sit down.Labels: coaching, game strategy, pre-season preparation, youth tournament teams
Permanent Link: The Softball Classroom
For LOVE Of The Game
by Dave
Friday, October 31, 2008
Last night, I read an article in "Fastpitch Delivery" written by Margie Wright, 24 year head coach of Fresno State and NFCA Hall of Fame inductee. I found it to be an interesting perspective but wrong on a number of levels. Today I want to offer up a refutation of many of the article's points.
Before I begin, let me acknowledge that Wright has much more perspective on this subject than I do, having played and coached the game for longer than I've been an adult. Further, she's been involved in the game at a high level in the most competitive "market." I should not have a better perspective on girls competitive fastpitch softball than Margie Wright and I suppose I really don't. She knows the subject inside out. Still, there are some obvious discrepancies in her positions and it is these I want to point out for the purpose of examining the sport and hopefully improving some folks' understanding.
Wright first praises the growth in our sport from the point of view of the benefits Title IX has bestowed. Coaching women's college softball has become "financially sound" in terms of higher budgets including more scholarships, better facilities, and legitimate recognition. There are more opportunities than ever for girls to participate in "competitive softball at all levels."
Wright claims that the huge growth in "exposure tournaments" has become a "lucrative business." She believes this and some other changes have made the game more about money and less about the "original reasons girls and women wanted to have the opportunity to play sports," which is for love of the game.
In order to bolster her arguments, Wright discusses the history of the game and notes that back in the good ole days, there were no age groups in softball. Young girls had to play with older ones or have no opportunity to participate. This provided opportunities to develop leadership skills as the older girls with greater experience necessarily had to teach the younger, less experienced girls what was expected of them. There were very few scholarship opportunities. Tournaments were always competitive ones - fastpitch showcases hadn't evolved yet. Opportunities to play professionally or in the capacity of representing the country were minimal. So players could play only for one reason, love of the game.
Before I get too into my refutation, let me say that "lucrative," "financially sound" and other measures of "success" are apparently in the eye of the beholder. It is relatively easy to acknowledge that women's basketball is a much more financially sound operation than softball is. Further, I know no person who has become particularly "wealthy" as a result of participation in softball.
Measures of wealth are obviously relative but among the most successful people involved in the sport, I believe very few have become wealthy directly from softball, at least in terms of what most people in this country would call wealthy. Many private coaches who run clinics and schools do make significant chunks of change. Some top college coaches are paid pretty well. Those who sell equipment or tutorials often earn a good living. There is money within the sport and some are better than others at piling it up. But the opportunities to earn significant sums are extremely limited and available to but a select, decided minority of even the best known names in the sport.
Women's college basketball coaches make far more money than do softball coaches. The very best earners, while not making anywhere near their male sport counterparts, often earn top dollar when compared to their peers in the general public. A local D-1 basketball coach, who happens to be among the top earners in the sport, makes a living which is among the top 1% of all earners in the country. She makes somewhere between a half million and a million dollars annually. But her university decided to pay her this money because it brings prestige to the institution and draws in women of all sorts for many different kinds of purposes. She does not earn this income on the strength of ticket sales for the institution's home games. She promotes the institution in ways completely unrelated to athletics.
I went searching for college softball head coach salaries. I'm pretty sure there is a broad range. Top D-1 coaches obviously make more than those plying their trade at D-3 at American Cumquat College in East Nowhere, Maldives. But across the broad spectrum, what I saw most often were figures in the range of $40K to $60K. By contrast, many lower level, assistant women's basketball positions advertised greater salaries than D-1 head coaching positions.
I'm fairly certain that tope clinicians in this sport can earn a very nice income. I expect there are less than a dozen individuals in these United States with sufficient reputations to earn top dollar and those individuals not only run clinics but also distribute videos they have made. On a local level, I can think of several private instructors who make significant sums. These folks' instruction is highly sought after. Their schedules are booked solid. And they work long hours, including all day long on Saturdays and Sundays. Most of the top local instructors are unable to go out and watch games any longer. The toil away in poor facilities, often run by them, rent out cheap space in schools or use their backyard or basement batting cages to give lessons.
From what I have observed running facilities can be a financially risky proposition. Over the past year or two, we have seen a number of new facilities come into being. Recently, we have observed a number of them close. There has been a net increase in local facilities but that's after about a 50% failure rate. And most of the facilities which have survived do not merely cater to softball. They opened up offering both baseball and softball, added agility and other types of training, and then expanded into other sports like soccer. The amopunt of money in softball is extremely limited.
Also, I challenge the notion that exposure tournaments have become a "lucrative business" for the coaches who run them. Certainly there is money to be made at these things but much of that money is channeled back into the game. My daughters' softball organization partially hosts one of the more important exposure tournaments in the country. It is held at our complex and we get to earn whatever we can make from the snackbar. The fellow who runs the thing has made money outside the sport. His whole reason for running the thing has to do with fundraising for the exposure team he runs. He does not have some huge house or expensive car as a result of running the tournament. It is not a lucrative business for him.
Our organization pretty much makes its money exclusively for the purpose of keeping itself afloat in order to provide a place for a hundred or so girls to play softball, recreational and travel. Were it not for that money, I'm not sure the organization would last a year. The funds go to field maintenance and other run of the mill expenses. There is nothing left over.
You know, when I was a young man, I took a job working in a retail store until such time as I could figure out what I wanted to do. I rose up within the hierarchy and became one of the most respected employees. When someone above me was fired, typically ownership would evaluate the position and decide if I could be moved up. This happened several times until I was the number 2 employee. That provided great opportunity to earn more and more which paid my way through college. I think the top salary I made in that job was $30,000 per year.
That was in the 1980s and was not a bad salary at the time for a 20 year old kid with no degree yet and no previous experience at anything. After college, I made more but at the time I earned $30K, I felt really good about it. I felt like I was earning a lot. No I didn't feel rich but I was making as much as I needed and really had no concept of what making say double that would feel like. A few years later I was earning twice as much but I was in debt, trying to start a family, and generally felt as if I really needed to make a lot more to pay for the things I wanted. Earnings and wealth are mostly relative.
I expect the college coach who made $30,000 per year for several years and then only gradually made her way up to $60,000, maybe $100,000 would feel as if the amount of money in the sport was really skyrocketing. But at the same time, I have to acknowledge that in my area, some elementary school teachers with advanced degrees, paid for by their employers, who have as much experience as Margie Wright earn close to $100K, with a select few making more than that. The average salary stands at near $75K with top earners (holding doctorates and with several decades of experience) making as much as $125K in one school system I reviewed for this article. Softball coaches are not extremely well paid.
In regards to college scholarships, there certainly is some money out there. The cost of tuition, books, room and board, etc. has become quite a nut to crack. Receiving anything at all towards that nut must be seen in a positive light. Achieving a full ride, obviously is a good thing from a purely financial point of view. But, according to stats I saw in the same issue of "Fastpitch Delivery," there were in excess of 370,000 girls playing high school softball last year. According to one web site I saw, there were less than 6,000 full ride equivalent college softball scholarships at all D-1 and 2 schools last year. That's a coverage ratio for all high school kids of less than 2%. That's not a lot. Softball is not a lucrative pursuit for the majority of girls playing the game.
Of those who actually do attain a softball scholarship, I imagine an estimate of the total value would be in the neighborhood of $30,000 to $40,000 per year. I'm willing to be high or low in the interests of just roughing this out. Right now, the cost of your average travel program is somewhere in the neighborhood of one thousand dollars per year. If the average 11 year old were to play travel softball - that's where the scholarship money comes into play - for the duration of her pre-college years, the cost would be a mere $8,000. $160,000 (4 years of college costs) would be a nice return on $8,000. But there are many other costs and evaluating this from an investment perspective yields all sorts of variations on the theme.
For one thing, taking that $8,000 and investing it over the course of say 8 years should cause it to double. Further, nobody I know who attains a fairly high level within the sport ever considers the cost of the travel team to be a particularly large piece of the overall cost structure. There are private hitting lessons, clinics, speed and agility, videotapes, seminars, somewhat significant costs of traveling to run of the mill tournaments, significant costs of travelling to one or more out of state tournaments, greater costs when girls compete at older age groups or go to those "lucrative" showcase events, etc. There are the little incidentals like composite bats at $200 a pop (often at least once a year), the expensive cleats (especially for pitchers), the hundreds of dollars in catching gear every couple of years, doctors bills, etc., etc. and so forth.
One father told me he expected to spend around $20K this year alone (aoll in and including his travel expenses and lodging) for his junior with some chance of obtaining a small piece of money at a lower level D-1 or a D-2 school. Another offered the more modest sum of $10K for his sophomore daughter. That's a one year cost. The sophomore family will spend $30K over the three years before graduation.
If you take all the financial costs of travel softball, played at a high level, and treated it like an investment - putting a little aside gradually and earning a return on it, and compare that to money saved on college costs, I expect the return would be significantly less than what one would hope for. No Virginia, softball is not financially lucrative for anyone but a few involved in the sport.
With respect to fastpitch softball's ability, or lack thereof, to produce leaders today vs. those it may have produced yesterday, I have to disagree with Wright that any drop off has to do with the growth of the age group game. For a very long time, boys have played baseball according to their ages. That's because 12 year olds cannot play baseball with 15 year olds of any decent skill level. Its just not possible. Oh, a few kids sporting 70 mile per hour fastballs who are "natural athletes" (meaning their fathers have them out working every day of the year) may be able to survive playing boys 3 years older than them, especially if those boys are not particularly good. But across the broad spectrum, middle school boys cannot hold their own against boys varsity players. They can barely engage in a game of catch or running bases with older boys. So it has always been.
Of course, there have always been more boys playing baseball than girls playing softball. It is a relatively easy matter to pull together a full league of four or more baseball teams in a small town, even when limited to an age span of just two years. So because there are enough boys and because boys cannot play with those much older than them, age group ball has reigned supreme in the boys game for many decades. Still, leaders are born of youth baseball leagues. There is not any real dearth of leaders on the baseball field.
I believe that if you take any group of people and put them into a situation, some kids will rise to the level of leaders and others will not. Leadership skills can be taught but in any given population, some will rise and some will follow. This has been proven over and over again via various studies. A year or so ago, there was that ridiculous reality TV show in which a group of kids was put into a pioneer town and tracked. The kids ranged in age from around 8 to around 13, I think. Some kids rose up and took leadership roles and many did not. Some of the oldest were reluctant leaders and became followers. Some of the youngest took charge and led groups older than themselves. This was more personality driven than age or experience driven.
I believe leadership comes about through via a complex recipe involving environment, experience, maturity, personality, opportunity, and some intangibles which we are not completely aware of. I do not believe for an instant that given a group of softball players, every time the older girls who have played more will necessarily become the team's leaders. Further, I believe that many of the societal influences on our lives create or fail to create leadership qualities in individuals. In other words, to the extent that we are failing to create leaders in the softball world, this reflects the overall society and does not exist separate and apart from it.
In the current societal environment, our nation's children have far more done for them than current adults do. Further I believe the same was true for the previous generation. The reasons for this are many and complex. I do not wish to delve into them as this might open up a can of worms I cannot shut. I will tell you that in one of the better moments of my life, I paid a visit to the Jack Daniel's distillery in Tennessee. There I learned that young Jack was a mere teenager when he founded the business. That was after years of an apprenticeship and some other business dealings. In Jack Daniel's day, kids took lots more responsibility than I and my peers did.
I know I worked for the first time at the age of 14, illegally, and had self-earned money in my pocket as early as 10 when I would walk along the train tracks, unbeknownst to my parents, pick up returnable bottles, bring them to a candy store and convert my earnings into bubble gum which I sold, against the rules, at school. By eleven, I was arranging to sell seeds via an advertisement I had seen in "Boys Life" magazine. I never asked my parents when I sent in the form. They learned of my endeavor when the seeds were delivered to the house. I walked door to door for three miles, visiting people neither I nor my parents had ever met, selling those seeds, turned in the money myself and arranged to have my reward, a tent, shipped to my house without ever seeking guidance from an adult. I was home alone when the tent arrived. I remember this because I didn't seek any adult guidance in putting the darn thing up. I never noticed the little loops on the side of the tent. I hammered the stakes right through the tent material just like I had seen on cartoons! The tent was garbage after that, although I did use it for several years.
I am hardly the picture of an early starter when it comes to learning how to be self-sufficient. Generally I would say I was far behind the curve - I lived a protected childhood when compared to many I knew. But my kids, by contrast, practically live in a bubble. I was caught hitch-hiking at age 8. My kids were not out of my sight long enough to walk to another house by that age. My friends were busy stealing sun glasses at a department store to sell to friends by age 9. I never engaged in that enterprise because I had been grounded for getting into a fistfight or for hitch-hiking. My kids have never been left alone long enough to get into a fistfight or to steal anything. If they did steal something, I would find it and ask where it came from. If somehow they managed to hide the contraband, they would never have any opportunity to sell it and if they did, I'd know about the money. My kids are growing up in a different environment than I did.
But back to softball. When my kids began playing the sport, I bought some balls and other equipment for them to use. When I was a kid, I was lucky if my father bought a single baseball, perhaps for Christmas or maybe for my birthday. I never remember a time when we had more than one baseball lying around. If I lost it, it might be months before I got a replacement. We have several dozen softballs laying around.
When I was a kid, mny father was a pretty well respected baseball coach. He coahced the 12Us when I was 9 and playing 10U. When I reached 11 and played 12U, my father coached 14s. I was the oldest boy. My father did not coach any team on which he ever had a kid. He did catch my pitching practice, however. I think that was maybe 6-12 times .... during my life. I caught my two daughters that many times (each) during August, our "rest month." Understand that I'm not complaining about my father. He did more than most. And I was never around anyway - I was never around. I usually left the house at about 7 am, every day of the summer, returning by dinner time on most days, lest I receive severe punishment. That routine probably started around age 8. If I wanted to pitch some practice, it was entirely up to me to find a catcher. My kids don't have that option. ' I'm pretty much it. It is a different day.
I believe this has much more to do with the development of leaders in softball than anything else. I do not believe for an instant that we would in anyway increase the development of leaders by combining younger kids with older ones in age group ball. I believe that has nothing to do with the equation.
I do believe there is one tendency of today's youth coaches which hinders the natural development of leaders. That is the fear of loosing control and/or unwillingness to see the development of leaders as a necessary part of putting a good team on the field. We live in a very structured world in which time is very precious. As I believe I noted a moment ago, we manage our kids' lives much more than our parents or their parents ever did. We begin indoor workouts in a highly structured form and continue this into the warmer months. If a kid disrupts the flow f practice, we pull her aside and talk to her about being more focused. That, of course, seems necessary. We don't want to allow practice time to be broken down. But when I was a kid playing youth baseball, that never happened.
When I was a kid, if there was one kid disrupting practice, we had a way of dealing with that. We beat him up and told him to quit it lest he suffer another beating. If we were running a batting practice and the pitcher was trying to strike everyone out, we told him to just throw it over the middle. (I don't wish to go into the error of our ways with this approach here and now) One of us would tell him to just get it over and stop trying to strike the kid out ... or else. It was understood what the consequences of not obeying would be. That could not happen anywhere in this country in a boys or girls sports environment today. Our "leadership" would be squashed immediately. And this extends well beyond the examples provided.
Some of us out here in youth travel coaching land do see the need to identify and develop leaders but we're not really sure how to do it. If we do understand, we are seldom willing to give up the degree of control which has a reasonable chance of building real leaders. Building leaders requires us to give up control and provide the environment in which anarchy can prevail. That is too difficult for most of us. So we err on the side of stucture and that prevents leaders from flexing their muscles.
My points are, there are certain situations which must prevail in order to develop leaders and today's adults do not provide much opportunity for such a development to occur. It has nothing to do with the relative ages we bring together on teams. It is more a societal/cultural thing.
To wrap this up, everything in my experience indicates that: A) Softball is growing - has grown quite a bit from the time of my youth to today; B) Money is not a significant part of the changes in the sport - nobody does this for exclusively financial reasons; C) We do not create as many leaders as we might in this sport - but we don't create as many leaders in any other sort of venture either due to societal forces having nothihng to do with softball, and D) Girls do indeed play this sport for LOVE of the game.
You know, it is impossible to imagine anyone doing something which results in the amount of pain and unhappiness softball induces for any reason other than LOVE of the game. Think about it this way, why would you ever try something with the high likelihood of a 30% success rate being the best you could possibly hope for in the long run? Why would you stand 40 feet from another girl with a big stick trying to hit a projectile at you at hopefully 98 mph? Why would you practice four times a week, year round in order to maybe defeat 60% of the other girls in the game while risking taking the blame for defeat from your closest 10 or 11 friends? Why would you choose to do something in which at least half the people you encounter, probably more like 90%, hope you fail? The only reason someone would choose to do something like that must be LOVE. This great sport of ours is growing precisely because more and more people each day develop a LOVE for it, not in spite of LOVE, nor for financial reasons. if we fail top develop leaders, there may be some things wrong, some things perhaps we can fix, or perhaps not. But its got nothing to do with diminished LOVE for the game.Labels: coaching, parenting, players
Permanent Link: For LOVE Of The Game
Concepts Of Visualization
by Dave
Thursday, October 30, 2008
I remember discovering visualization by accident when I was ten and playing football. Nobody ever told me to do it. I just started one day as a way to calm my nerves before a game. I sat there contemplating the game I was to play and began picturing how it might play out. That lesson carried into baseball and other sports I played in an organized fashion. It always provided an edge which might not otherwise have been there. And so, I'm now going to share with you some of my observations and the concepts I have discovered in my travels.
First of all, I'm afraid that many do not understand or even know about visualization, let alone practice it. Select few coaches ever teach it to their players. That's a shame since every major athlete in every sport practices this "secret technique."
I don't know exactlty how to prove to you how prevalent this practice is but I'll try. When you see someone in a sports contest turn away from the game and seem to stare off or go through some private ritual, they are either visualizing or invoking some element of a prior visualization. When you see Kobe Bryant listening to an ipod while dribbling the ball back in the corridors, waiting for his team to take the court, he's visualizing. When a baseball pitcher goes to the back of the mound and engages in a prayer, yes he is praying but he is also invoking something from a visualization exercise. When a player squats in the on-deck circle and closes his or her eyes, he or she is visualizing. When the track star makes a slow motion exercise out of their running form, swinging their arms, etc., they are visualizing the race. I absolutely know they are visualizing because I have done this myself many times, found it to work, and seen it cause the seemingly odd athlete behavior we often see at sporting events.
The reasons why visualization works are many and complicated. For one thing this practice instills confidence since the athlete thinks more about success than failure which is always advisable. Also, it helps one become more focused as one waits for his or her turn to perform. Probably more important though not often discussed is something I saw recently in a show about technology.
What I saw indicates that visualization is a powerful form of practice. You see, when a human being thinks about doing something, his or her nerves fire as if the motion is actually being made. A technology show I watched recently involved a man thinking about moving one limb or another. Scientists connected electrodes to the neurons which triggered his movement. The man was told to move a cursor on a computer screen by thinking about moving one of the limbs but not actually moving it. He was able to spell out a word by moving the cursor and then clicking on the appropriate letter by thinking about moving each of the limbs. Of course this was time consuming but it has uses beyond imagination that were spelled out in the show. That doesn't interest us right now. The important part is thinking about moving a limb or a muscle causes the neural pathway to fire in a way intended to make that move. Thinking about moving fires your nerves for moving.
We've been over the concept of motor memory and how that impacts a player's game before. Everything in sport is related to proper motor memory including not only the movement of muscles in a proper way but also the firing of nerves. The concept of use it or lose it tells us that if we were to remain stationery for a very long period of time, we would lose some of our muscular ability through atrophe and through inactivity of our neurons. Further, use of neurons and muscles causes the growth of surrounding tissue and makes making any particular movement easier the next time.
Let's say that active muscle fiber 1 is surrounded by inactive fibers numbered 2 to 10. When we use fiber 1, the surrounding fibers are activated in a manner meant to replace 1, if it should fail. In the case of muscle fibers, we actually do from time to time burn one out and the ones surrounding it come to life to replace it. I'm not sure of the ratios or precisely how this works but the concept is identical to this: Fiber 1 dies and fibers 2-10 are activated. Then later, our work kills off fibers 2-10 and fibers 11-100 are activated to replace them. Essentially, we replace used up fibers with ever increasing numbers of back-ups.
In the motor memory environment, when swinging a bat or making a throw, we could initially activate any of muscle fibers 1-A through 1-Z instead of fiber number 1, if we somehow make a mistaken move. That would result eventually in fiber number, say, 1-G dying off and being replaced by fibers 2-G through 10-G, and so on. We would, in essence build up the muscles to do something incorrectly. We hold the potential to reinforce good muscle fibers or bad ones for making a particular mechanical move.
With respect to nerves, neurons number 1 through 10 are each potential pathways for some sort of action. When we fire one particular nerve, that action causes the myelin sheath - the fatty tissue surrounding nerves to get larger. With every succeeding firing of the nerve, the sheath grows more massive. The more massive the sheath, the better the conductivity of the neuron. In other words, if the "correct" pathway is used more frequently than the incorrect one, it becomes more reactive, it becomes more functional and quicker. The same is true for the incorrect pathway. If we use it too much, it becomes stronger than the "correct" pathway. We hold the potential to reinforce good neural pathways or bad ones for making a particular mechanical move.
These are the reasons why it is so important to learn proper mechanics and to practice them frequently. When we learn a proper mechanic and then make it a part of us, we make it not only easier to properly re-perform it, but also less easy to do the wrong thing in the future. The neurons supporting proper movement are more developed and conductive so they tend to be the first choice of a pathway. The right muscle fibers are built up to perform the task and can override wrong muscle fibers efforts to, uh, muscle in on the action.
This concept is at the heart of the grace and smooth movement we see whenever we observe great athletes. Some people come by some of these motor-neuron actions naturally but most people come by most of them via practice - through repeated deliberate firings of the right neurons. Certainly there are some genetics at work but just as certainly, nurture is at least as important as nature. Even a natural born great athlete can be completely lethargic, inactive, uncoordinated, if he or she doesn't use his or her "gifts." The less naturally gifted person can accomplish great things through proper mechanics by building up the right neuro-muscular pathways.
And this ties into visualization because thinking about firing the "right" neurons actually causes them to fire. If a human being could be a complete blank slate, never having moved or fired their neuro-muscular system for making a throw before, and that person were taught to throw completely correctly - to fire only the right neurons and use only the precisely correct muscular fibers for some period, the neurons would become so conductive and the muscle fibers so relatively built up that she would never be able to throw wrong. Performing visualization alone - firing the neurons but not moving the muscles - makes the right movement easier. This is the concept we try to employ in practice sessions and it is the concept we should employ via visualization exercises.
The way I came by visualization was to picture a particular situation requiring a particular movement. Football was my sport at the time and the movement I was interested in was the tackle of a ball carrier. As I obsessed about the circumstance, I began to "be there" in soul and mind, if not in body. My senses felt my presence on the field. I saw (hence the term visualization) the runner moving to get away from me. I felt the ground at my feet and began to run (in my head) to make contact. I experienced everything about the potential event in my head long before it might happen and completed the tackle using proper technique. I did this over and over again. Later, during a real game, I made such a tackle. I remember the coaches talking among themselves and saying something like "I never knew he was such a good tackler." At that point, not having any understanding of what I had done, not knowing that this was called visualization, not understanding that there was a direct correlation between the exercise and my success on the field, I was still hooked. Before my next game and the one after that, I visualized and was successful as a result.
A long time later, I began mistakenly visualizing some failures. I had no idea that this had any impact whatsoever on my performance. I still didn't know what the technique was called nor that it had any real impact on play. I began to have this visualization "nightmare" in which I reached the quarterback right after he released the ball. And then, that happened in reality too. But that's a lesson we'll get to a little later.
I remember in college that I was working very hard and obtaining very good grades. I found myself a mentor in the form of a priest who was teaching my required philosophy class. He taught me a great deal about philosophy. He also taught me a great deal about visualization which aided me immeasurably in terms of school performance.
This priest noticed that I worked incredibly hard, probably too hard. I always read everything about twice as many times as everyone else. I often performed my homework twice. I sometimes went to both sessions of a particular course in order to witness the lecture twice. By the time the exam came around, I was often able to teach the course and easily aced the test. This priest, this professor, told me that I didn't need to do that, that I was wasting my time. He strongly encouraged me to work a little less hard and start working on visualizing success. He told me that once I read a work, I could recall it if, rather than reading it again, I allowed myself to recall it. He asked me if I knew anything about visualization and then taught me about it. That's when I learned that what I had been doing all along had a name! And that's when I stopped working quite so hard yet received the same grades for my efforts.
When we are very young softball players, we go to some sort of instructional clinic and learn to throw or hit or perhaps pitch. The instructor tells us something about what we'll be doing. Then perhaps she demonstrates it. Next she breaks it down to smaller parts and teaches one of them. We perform the skill and receive correction. Afterwards we are told to practice these moves. In the next session, the instructor goes over the moves from the prior session and evaluates our progress. She gets a frown on her face as she realizes we did not do our homework. She tries to correct our mistakes, encourages us to practice, and then moves on to the next skill. The next sessions go similarly. At some point, the instructor is likely to observe someone doing the skills properly and will generally give that person more attention. She recognizes that this kid has been practicing and that's the kid she is going to try to encourage even more.
There is no question that the key to learning a mechanical skill is repetition. If we have the time, opportunity and place to work on the skills we most recently learned, it would be an excellent idea to follow through with practice. In that manner, we teach the neuro-muscular pathways to perform the skills properly and we become a better player. If we do not have the opportunity or will to practice, we still get some benefit out of the clinic but not nearly as much as the kid who leaves and works on the skills. That's just the way the world turns.
If in addition to performing a skill for an additional half hour or so of practice, we try visualization as a means of learning the physical skill, certainly we don't use the same muscles but we do activate the neural pathways. We get at least part of the benefit of practicing. If there is some way in which we can actually act out some of these skills, though without a ball for throwing or a bat for swinging, we still get the benefit of activating the pathways and using some of the muscles. And as we do this, it becomes increasingly easier to reperform the desired mechanical skill in the proper way.
The same thing works for visualization - that is, trying visualization makes you better at doing it. So, now I'm going to try to teach you how.
To begin with, your brain and body need to be relaxed. I recommend finding a place where you will not be interrupted. If you are interrupted during a visualization, you must star anew. That's aggravating so try first to find someplace lonely.
The next thing you want to do is get into a comfortable position. You may be in this position for a while so make sure you are not going to move around a lot.
Now start taking some deep, relaxing breaths. In and out. In and out. Focus only on your breathing.
Now, gradually picture your breathing self somewhere else, someplace off in the distance. It's a ballpark. Well, what do you know about that?
Engage your senses gradually. Smell the turf. Smell the scents coming from the snackbar adjacent to the field. Feel the early morning cool air which is beginning to be heated up by the sun which is rising behind your back. Feel the rays of sunshine on your neck. Did you remember to put on sunscreen before you left the house for the fields?
Smell the dirt, feel the sun, hear the sounds around you. Kids are doing drills, stretching, etc. Off in the distance a game has started. The girls are doing cheers. The umpire just yelled "STRIKE." Somebody just hit a ball but the shortstop fielded it and threw her out at first.
Somebody from your team has arrived so you pick up your equipment bag and head for the dugout. You clip your bag to the fence and take out your glove. "Do you have a ball? Want to warm up?"
You go to the outfield and begin throwing. Work hard to make a good throw. Use proper mechanics. When the return throw is offline, move your feet to make the catch. Hop quickly into a good position and make a strong, accurate return throw.
Other girls have arrived and one of the coaches wants you to take some swings now. You walk back quickly to your bag, put your glove in, and take out your bat and helmet. You take about ten swings at the stick and move over to the soft-toss station another coach has set up. Your swing was very good. You used proper mechanics just like your hitting coach showed you. Then when you swung at the soft-toss you made solid connection on every ball. Everything felt light and easy.
The girls are all here now. Blue just walked up and your coach is talking to them and the other manager at home plate. "We're up first ladies." You know you're hitting third so you get your gloves on, fix your hair and put your helmet on before going behind the dugout to take some swings. You watch the pitcher. She's fast but nothing you haven't seen before. You can hit her. It smells like somebody is cooking bacon at the snackbar. You'll go there after the game. You take a couple swings and hear the ump call' "ball four," the first batter walks.
You go over to the on-deck circle and watch while your number two hitter takes her at-bat. She watches ball one, fouls off two and is in a 1-2 hole before watching 3 consecutive balls and walking. Two runners on and you;re coming to bat. I hope she finds the plate - I don't feel like walking, I want to hit. Her first pitch is off the plate and you take it for a ball. meanshile, your two runners have moved up abnd they're now at second and third. You don't want to walk so you get yourself ready in case she throws anything close.
The next pitch seems to be coming right down the middle so you begin your swing which is as nice as it was during warm-ups. You rip that ball deep into left center and leg out a double. Two runs in, still nobody out.
Exercise over!!!
That is how you engage in visualization. You begin with a quiet, out of the way place you won't be interrupted. You relax and then start fantasizing a complete picture filled with stimulation of your senses, smells of grass the snackbar, the air; sounds of others around you and the game in general; any other sensations you usually associate with playing softball. Then you start picturing yourself performing skills in a manner which represents the best mechanical practices you know. This is very important, especially when visualizing, you do not want to perform skills perfunctorily, carelessly. If anything, you want to perform the skills with the absolute best mechanics you know. Go slowly if you must but in all cases do the skills the way you want to do them.
If there is a player or demonstrator who did the skill you are visualizing particularly well, picture that person doing it. Then picture yourself doing it. You can start with an external image - you are watching yourself doing the skill pefectly - but you want to eventually see it first hand. This is a mistake in visualization that many make. You can see yourself externally doing the skill but you need to internalize it, make it firsthand. watch yourself do it from outside but then see it as you are doing it and making all the right moves.
You can start visualization with some very simple skills like swinging the bat, fielding a grounder right at you, throwing a pitch right down the middle. But I want you to progress to more advanced skills right afterwards. Get that tough grounder up the middle. Make an unreal catch on a throw to the base you are covering and come down making the tag. paint that outside corner. Hit that really tough pitch far into the corner. Run out some extra-base hits, not just singles. throw that change-up or curveball you've been working on. Do the swing mechanics just right and really hit the ball hard.
Visualization, like all skills, is something you are going to have to work on. the first time you do it, get as far as you can. The second time, get farther along. Then, perhaps one day, you can play an entire game in your head. You don't need to include the actual entire game but just the parts which relate to you individually. It shouldn't take you all that long.
As you progress with this exercise, you should more and more easily lapse into the self-hypnotic state. You should be able to conjure up the smells and sounds more and more easily. Visualization gets easier every time you try it. You should need less and less solitude. Eventually you can accomplish it even in the car ride to the game despite the fact that your father is playing his favorite AC/DC CD on the car stereo. Eventually, you will find that you can visualize an at-bat right in the on-deck circle and that's where I'd like you to take it.
What I mean is when we start visualizing, it is best to have optimum conditions. You are secluded and protected from being interrupted. You have time and opportunity to get into a relaxed state. You can take your time to build the mental image. But eventually, you'll be able to do this anytime, anyplace you want to. And when you get that good, I'm going to want you to try it out right before your at-bats, right before you actually make a pitch.
Keep in mind that given what I told you at the start, part of what we are trying to accomplish is to do skills right, with proper mechanics. So when you see others pe4rform skills well, you want to take special note of it and incorporate it into your own visualization exercises. if you are lucky enough to attend a professional or high level college game, watch the players closely and pick out something you want to emulate. Then try this out in your home or in the car on the way home. If you're playing a tournament and some kid makes a spectacular play do the same thing.
When you visualize, always move from the small to the big. Always start out somewhat slowly with a small element of the mechanical skill and then move from there to the bigger picture. You do not jump immediately to hitting the ball over the fence. First you take a very good swing. Then you hit the ball hard. Then you might hit that homerun.
An important aspect to visualization is bringing as much actual experience, as much reality as you possibly can. If you've ever hit a ball really hard, made a great play, or thrown what you would call the perfect pitch, use these instances in your visualizations. And as you grown and grow, improve and improve some more, find new instances of great play with which to conjure up new visualizations.
Visualization will make you hit some balls really hard. When that happens, use the most recent hard hit in your next visualization. Repeat this often. With every great play or performance, incorporate these recent accomplisments in order to make your visualization more effective.
Stay away from bad experiences like swinging and missing, throwing too fat of a pitch, or making a bad play. we all do these things but there's absolutely no reason to harp on them. Visualization is the exclusive domain of positive experiences. You can take a called strike but let's leave that for 3-0 counts where you chose not to swing, where your objective was merely to watch the pitcher's delivery so you could hit the next pitch really hard.
Finally, one of the things I am after here is your personal confidence. Yes, I want to reinforce good mechanics by practicing in your head. Yes, I want you to gain focus by learning to concentrate better. But as much as anything else, I want your confidence as a ball player to grow and grow. Make all the usual plays but also make some good even great ones. Hit singles with nobody on but also drive in the winning run with a walk-off homerun or double. Visualize great things for yourself.
And along with your visualization, I want you to practice some affirmations. I want you to tell yourself, "I am a good ball player. I was a good player in the past but I'm much better today. I'm going to be a better ballplayer tomorrow, next week, next year. Eventually, I'm going to be one of the best around. I'm that good already and I'm constantly getting better. I just need to remember to practice harder each time while allowing myself to succeed. I just need to picture myself having success and winning. if I do these things, there's no stopping me. I'm going to be the very best I can be."Labels: coaching, mental toughness, parenting, practice, Visualization, work ethic
Permanent Link: Concepts Of Visualization
One For The Team
by Dave
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I forget whether I've mentioned this before or not. An acquaintance tells the story about how he was coaching a youth tournament team in (I think) a championship game which had gone tied into the final inning with bases loaded and two outs, his team at bat. The girl at the plate either hadn't had a hit in quite some time or was in some sort of slump. He was sure she would not now get a game winning hit so he called time to go over and talk to her. He told the girl to lean into the pitch in an attempt to be hit by it. He promised her: 1) it won't hurt and 2) I'll buy you an ice cream after the game, if you do it. So the guy went back to coaching third and the kid stepped into the box. She did what she was told to do and was hit by the pitch. But it did indeed hurt. The girl laid on the ground near home, screaming at the coach, "you said it wasn't going to hurt!" That was the coach's first broken promise. The second was he welched on the deal - he never bought that ice cream!! On the other hand, his team did win the game. I won't pass a value judgment per se on this tactic. It's a good story. But I do want to discuss the overall issue from a couple different angles including the ramifications of girls intentionally getting plunked.
In professional baseball, leaning into the pitch is considered an acceptable strategy. I went to college with a fellow by the name of Craig Biggio who played for the Houston Astros. Biggio was "plunked" 285 times during his major league career, 2 short of the all-time record held by Hughie "Yeehah" Jennings. I cannot be absolutely sure whether Biggio, jennings, or any other particular major league player had himself deliberately plunked but one can imagine at least one of the all-time leaders may have employed this strategy.
I grew up watching Ron Hunt play ball. Hunt's motto was "Some people give their bodies to science; I give mine to baseball" within the context of a discussion about the fact that on a per at-bat basis, Hunt was plunked more than any other player. Hunt was once hit by three pitches in a single game. He set the modern era standard of being plunked 50 times in one season - Jennings was hit 51 times one year during the late 1800s. At retirement, Hunt was the modern era career leader in HBPs with 243. That record was broken by Don Baylor and then Biggio. But Hunt always insisted that he did not deliberately throw himself at pitches in order to be hit. He just leaned in over the plate to hit the ball. Still many question whether Hunt, Jennings, or Biggio might have done this just to get on base at opportune moments.
I haven't heard anyone complain about Baylor since he had over 2,000 hits and was an RBI machine for most of his career. More likely than Baylor leaning into pitches in order to get on base is another strategy employed in baseball - that of intentionally plunking a batter!
I'm not talking about the "plunk" in a vacuum. There are going to be some points in all this, when I am done. But before I get there, I need to tell you some more stories.
Several years ago, my then sleepy 11 year old played her first year of travel softball. At one of our tournaments, there was a very good pitcher lined up against us. She threw hard (55) and had pretty good movement for a 12 year old. My daughter got up to bat against her in a situation which did not hold any opportunity to win the game or even make a serious dent in the score by getting hit by a pitch.
My daughter was, as I said, a sleepy little kid who was also playing with girls much older, larger, stronger, more experienced and skilled than she was. She had really just begun to hit the ball. She was not particularly afraid of being hit by pitches and didn't shy away when facing fast pitchers. She did not and still does not stand particularly close to the plate, choosing instead to stand so as to cover the outside corner with about two inches of bat unless facing a curveball pitcher. But her reactions were a little slow back then so when the pitcher threw an inside screwball, she began to swing, stopped, and was plunked by the pitch while not making a real effort to get out of the way.
She hadn't tried to get out of the way because she thought the pitch was hittable not because she wanted to be plunked. There was no discernible reason to try to get plunked. The pitch was a screwball which moved towards her quite a bit. It was a good pitch which started out looking as if it might be a strike but sliding well into the batter. Still, the idiot umpire called a ball and refused to award the kid first base.
Along the sidelines, many people unrelated to the team had seen this occur. Most couldn't believe the call. They were rather incredulous. They could see what the pitch was - the area behind the backstop was very large and that's where most people were. Not one person I talked to agreed with the call but that's the call that was made. After the kid was tended to and helped from the field, a pinch hitter was sent up and she struck out ending the inning. The rest of the game was filled with screams at the umpire for being a jackass from numerous people including myself. teh manager was on him from that point forwards. People I had never seen before gave him grief. I'll never forget that umpire whose name is known to me but not important to you. Every once in a while he tries to engage me or my acquaintances in conversation at some game. I expect he doesn't understand why we're so cold to him. But the man is a jackass. He's made many other bad calls.
Still, such a call is a perfectly normal occurrence in softball, presumably with good reason given the tactics I and others have seen employed. You almost always see the batter awarded first when plunked in baseball. I don't know if I've ever seen a baseball ump not award first.
In fastpitch softball, many times softball umps refuse to give the batter first. I've seen pitches which plunked the batter be called strikes several times. I'm not sure why in baseball the umps do not make similar rulings - I believe the rules are the same in both games. The one thing I am sure about is that the rules of fastpitch softball do indeed give the umpire the option of awarding first or not based on whether the batter makes what is deemed to be an acceptable attempt to get out of the way. I'm not aware of any set of rules under which the umpire doesn't have discretion in these cases.
Usually such a ruling occurs where the pitch is within 2 to 3 inches of the plate or over it and the batter fails to turn inward and back. What I mean is, if a right handed batter is up and a pitch is close, she can avoid this call by turning in towards the plate and back, facing the umpire. Otherwise she risks being told to remain at bat after being plunked. They don't always make such a call but I've never seen an ump refuse to award first where the batter makes such a movement even though it really is not a sufficient effort to actually get out of the way since it does not move her further away from the pitch.
Part of the problem in either baseball or softball is some of the worst injuries occur as a direct result of being HBP. Baseball players have had their careers ended. Some have suffered effects for the remainder of their lives. And in fastpitch softball, I believe the forces are often greater due to the larger weight of the ball.
I imagine some will disagree that the forces are greater in softball but, to those folks, I point you back to the "Sports Science" episode in which the force of a Jennie Finch fastball was compared to that of a hard throwing minor league baseball pitcher. The baseball pitcher threw several balls which struckj a plate set up to measure impact. Jennie Finch then followed in kind. Her first pitch broke the measuring device. Conclusion: pitched softballs, despite the slower speed, carry greater force.
Of course my proof involves a TV show and one which is kind of prone to putting sensationalism before fact. A more cold, calculated approach is probably appropriate here. Force is generally calculated by a formula in which mass (weight is a reasonable proxy when we limit our analysis to Earthly mass) is multiplied by speed. A good approximate speed for a pitched softball is about 65 mph at professional levels while that for baseball is about 90. A softball weighs in at around 6.8 ounces while a baseball weighs about 5. Multiplying the weight of each times the given speed yields 442 for softball and 450 for baseball. That means the force for a pitched baseball is slightly larger but hold the phone. We aren't talking about professional ball. Instead, we need to look at youth ball.
In the Little League Woprld Series for each sport, which involves 12U level play, baseball pitchers threw right around 65 most of the time. A few hit 70 but most were in the area of 65. In softball, pitchers threw around 53. I believe a few were closer to 60 but the majority were about 53-55 and I want to err on the conservative side. Multiplying 53 and 65 mph out yields a force proxy number of 360 for softball and 325 for baseball. That's quite a larger difference with softball representing more than a ten percent higher force.
So my conclusion is the force of the fastball in youth softball is greater than that in youth baseball. And I believe this has something to do with why umpires enforce the rule for the batter not getting out of the way more than they do in baseball. I think it is a matter of safety for girls playing softball that they be discouraged from leaning in and trying to get plunked.
Indeed, in the instance the e-mailer sent me, the batter who was plunked was hit in the helmet. And the helmet cracked. I've never seen a helmet cracked in a youth baseball game though I have seen more baseball than softball games in my life and, as a player, I was plunked quite a few times in the head. Can you tell?
More to my point, while I understand that many men are involved in coaching softball, most do not take the trouble to calculate the force with which their batters would be hit if they dared to lean into a pitch. If they did, perhaps the practice of telling kids to try to be hit in certain circumstances would cease.
What got me going on this issue today was an e-mail I received from an angry parent. The parent had observed a game the night before in which a hitter came to the plate and was plunked. The parent noted that the girl's team appeared to be a very well coached, disciplined, aggressive squad which went on to win the "pretty large" tournament. The parent saw the kid apparently lean in on an 0-2 pitch but wasn't sure about the "lean in" part. In her next at-bat, the count was 0-1 when she again got plunked. But this time the ump called "strike" and the batter was not awarded first.
The coaches for the girl's team became "unglued" and an argument of almost ten minutes ensued. Later the kid came to bat again and was plunked yet again on an 0-2 pitch which the umpire called strike three, batter out. This time coaches were ejected after the ten minute argument. That's twenty minutes wasted over a by-the-book call as old as the game itself in a time-limited game in which one team apparently employed a strategy which is questionable at best.
Further, the team with the hit batter, the one which had argued for about a third of the allotted play time is well known in the area where this tournament was played. Lots of people were there, saw what happened, questioned the behavior of the team coaches and talked about it on the sidelines at length. This raises an even more important issue and one which this all is really about.
What is the saying? It takes a lifetime to build a reputation and an instant to ruin it? The problem is nobody involved in softball really likes the tactic of "taking one for the team." If you are watching some sort of championship, a kid for your team takes one and the result is a win, you may be happy for a while. But aside from this fleeting moment, nobody approves of or likes the idea of a batter leaning into a pitch as an offensive tactic. Some may admire the tactic within the setting of professional baseball. But nobody thinks it is a good idea and nobody likes it when youth sports team try it out.
This practice had a couple lasting effects. I'm sure that when any team plays against the team which employed the tactic, words are going to be shared with the intention of pointing out to umps that this team is know to do that. I wouild do that in a heartbeat, wouldn't you? Then I might just have my pitcher throw inside quite a bit to get their girls off the plate. And the we would try to get them out away. But that's a tactic for beating a team. That's mere gamesmanship. That's not a good lasting effect. Here's a better one.
The parents at this game talked along the sidelines how this team and its coaches employed the deliberate strategy of training their kids to get plunked. Then they went home and over the next weeks, will undoubtedly talk among their softball friends and acquaintances about the team. Some may point to a kid here or there who was permanently injured after being hit by a pitch and a general impression will be built within the softball community that the team which employed the tactic is to be avoided so long as those particular coaches are involved.
Oh, this may seem to be pie in the sky. Nothing happens that fast other than a tsunami. But the se | |
