Impressive Coaching @ LL Level

[shake-n-bake]

I continue to be impressed by a team in my son's league that is obviously superbly coached. My son's team (11-3) was swept in their season series with this team (12-1-1). All of the games have been close (5-4, 1-0, and 6-3), but in the end this other team has made very few mistakes (1 error in the 3 games combined).

They probably could be 14-0, but I've seen them put a lot more focus than just about everyone else in the league on developing every kid on the team. :thumbsup: And, they aren't winning at the expense of everyone having fun :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Aside from making plays on defense, they are smart baserunners, can execute a bunt, and of course are blessed with hitting and pitching. I'm really pleased that one of the coaches will be coaching my son's AS team. It should be a good opportunity to play some competive baseball and really improve his game.

If that isn't enough, the kids' and coaches' sportsmanship is great too. My son made a fine defensive play to throw out a runner at the plate. At the time it was a critical play in the game. Their coaches applauded. And, when they shook hands after the game, they and most all their players gave him some appreciation for the play.

Nice work.

[DerekD]

I'm really trying to set this example in our league. Most of these guys don't realize that LL isn't the end all in baseball. You won't remember who the champs were in a couple of years anyway. We talk up high school ball because I think any player has at least a shot at that. Unfortunately, your situation isn't the most common one at this level. Enjoy it while you can.

[shake-n-bake]

Derek, it's not the status quo in our league either.

Some things I see at work here are a) The coaches are secure in their kids' ability. Like a lot of situations, the coaches' kids are good players, but they will sit them occassionally, or not start them at say pitcher against a 2-12 team. b) They're clearly the creme de la creme in our league, but they don't what I call "BCS" weaker teams. Where some teams feel they have to 10 run or for some unexplainable reason (usually to keep a coaches' kid's pitch count down so he can dominate a 3-11 team in two or three days) get style points against the lesser teams, this team plays their less experienced kids at positions and critical times in games where they're expected to make plays against those teams. That pays off next year as well as not operating like they must "hide" their end of the bench players for a couple innings against the better teams. c) They've got a balance of coaches and parents involved with the team. Some have kids that'll be back next year. They have an interest in developing kids and the team for next year.

[AgentX]

The draft for our LL Majors spread out a lot of the league's talent, but interestingly enough, it was the teams that were most balanced that performed the best overall.

With the new pitch-count rules, it was impossible for any team to just ride upon the back of two dominant pitchers.

The coaches who worked to improve weaker players rather than just relying upon their strong players and All-Stars were the ones who finished on top. These teams started slow but grew stronger as the season progressed and the holes in their lineups and defense filled themselves.

It's really good to see.

[baseballdad]

The coaches who worked to improve weaker players rather than just relying upon their strong players and All-Stars were the ones who finished on top. These teams started slow but grew stronger as the season progressed and the holes in their lineups and defense filled themselves.


Very true.

Another thing I noticed about the teams that did the best over the season were teams that practiced in a "drill based system" versus the classic coach hitting to a field of players for most of the practice.

[wilson68]

I thought about starting a new thread but this observation fits well here.

I am 41 and last year I started playing in a men's fastpitch league, the first I have played since I was 26. It is a new league started by a bunch of twenty somethings, many of whom I coached 10-12 years ago. We are in our third year and have grown from four to six to, now, eleven teams.

That's just background. Tonight I watched one of the new teams, which includes a man whom I have known my whole life. He is 42 and we have lived in the same village since we were born. His father lived here and my father grew up here. We were friends as children and we played ball together as children. For one year, because I hated ball as a child and was really bad at it. I took my turn in right field, never caught anything and I don't remember hitting the ball, although I might have. He was our star pitcher and best player. His father was our coach and he was good to me. Determined that I was going to be a ballplayer, although he didn't succeed at the time.

It is now, thirty years later, that it strikes me if you told someone at that time that we would be the two still playing at 40, they would have called you crazy. Him, yeah, but me, not likely.

Be careful of assigning value based upon current interest and skill. Most good players are just a little more skilled, not God-gifted better ball players. They have more interest, and have had more opportunity, often in the form of interested parents. My father was one of the best ball players around but he had no real interest in me playing. My friend's father wasn't a player, but was interested.

Don't restrict the poorer kids chances in the interests of winning. I can't even remember playing as a kid. I don't remember the scores, what I did at the plate, anything. I do remember being given a chance by one coach, even though I didn't take it. I also remember my one other attempt to play as a child, when I played two innings in one game and sat out the entire second. There was no third game, I stayed home. Odd, now, that I am the most interested of any of the kids that were on that field.

I have watched and coached at least two groups of young players from 10 up through 18 and beyond. I am on a third and, as 9 year olds, I realized I had a group that really had no differences between them. I knew some would be good, and some would quit playing but, as 9 year olds, I didn't know which was which. I realized more than ever that they were going to learn to be good players. They weren't born that way. Which means that they can all learn to be good players. Now, they have to want it, but any of them that wants to will, if they are given opportunity and coaching. And you can make them not want to succeed, faster than you can make them want to.

Winning is for the parents. If the kids don't win, it means the parents are bad people, in the subconscious reaches of their own minds. If you have kids who have to win, I guarantee they have parents who want it more. Winning is nice but it should result if your entire team becomes better. If it results because you are better at hiding your weaker players than you have misunderstood what you are doing.

To comment on the OP: those guys sound outstanding.