| 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 |
| • |
November 22, 2009 |
| • |
November 29, 2009 |
| • |
December 27, 2009 |
| • |
January 03, 2010 |
| • |
January 10, 2010 |
| • |
January 17, 2010 |
| • |
January 24, 2010 |
| • |
January 31, 2010 |
| • |
March 14, 2010 |
| • |
March 21, 2010 |
| • |
March 28, 2010 |
| • |
April 04, 2010 |
| • |
April 18, 2010 |
| • |
April 25, 2010 |
|
|
| SOFTBALL LINKS |
|
|
|
Temperments - Chemistry
by Dave
Sunday, August 24, 2008
MLB manager, Joe Torre, claims there is nothing to "team chemistry." He says winning takes care of chemistry. If a team wins, chemistry appears to be in place but if the same team loses, you have personalty issues. I may be wrong about this but I totally disagree.
I have been proven wrong many times before and I'll be proven wrong many times in the future. With these Olympic games which come to an end tonight, I suppose you can find many ways in which I am wrong. To me many of these sports need tweakings, need to be changed slightly in order to make them better. For instance, I am disappointed by the diving competition. I don't like that, in the finals, perhaps the top 6 are determined with the first or first two dives, the top three are evident after 3 or 4, and the top 3 or 4 are really the only ones who have a shot at earning a medal. Not only that, each of the top divers performs basically the same dive and the one who is just slightly better usually wins. I'd like to see diving become more dynamic, more like a backyard contest. I think diving would be improved if everyone had a shot at a medal if they were able to suddenly pull off something unique.
If say the diver in last place were able to perform something nobody else was even willing to attempt, a 4 or 5 rotation flip on his or her last dive, he or she should be able to stun the crowd and steal the gold by the feat. This would result in at least 6 of the divers trying something that has never been done before and push the sport. There would be at least 4 or 5 divers landing awkwardly and needing to be helped from the pool with completely reddened side or stomachs, writhing in pain though no real damage has been done. It would be more like impromptu contests in your backyard in which Jimmy seeks to outclass Joey, who just did a perfect one and a half, by attempting a two and a half but missing the dive rather completely.
Further, I am somewhat bored when the gold, silver and bronze medalists at say 400 meters run in one four person track relay in which they have to run the same distance. I'd like to see modifications in which a bunch of runners line up for the first hand-off and the guy in the lead gets to pick who he wants to hand the thing off to. This would, of course, result in all sorts of controversy with guys and gals from varying nations making secret pacts. It would also cause commotion on the podium as multiple national anthems would have to be played for the winning team made up, perhaps, of runners from four different nations. But you have to admit it would make things more interesting.
I wouldn't mind it if the games could come to a close with an event like a large contest of tug of war in which all nations would together teams (both genders, multiple disciplines) trying to win the final gold medal. The losers would, obviously, suffer the indignity of getting covered with mud while the winners would remain clean. The podium would be great entertainment and the closing parade would require that participants in the tug of war come as they are, covered with mud if they didn't win the gold, though toweling off their faces would be allowed.
Further, I would like to see track or the Olympic games in their entirety create a true medley relay. It might involve runners, pole vaulters and javelin throwers who must complete basically a full course before claiming victory. Better yet, I would like to see a running relay event in which teams would have to use athletes from a choice of different disciplines. It might be OK to use a track star as anchor leg but you'd have to have one runner from the sports of badminton, table tennis, or fencing as one leg, another from one of the pool sports (divers and swimmers are notoriously slow runners) and perhaps somebody from another batch of sports like boxing, wrestling, etc.. The devil may be in the details, and somebody else can work these things out, but the idea would be at least 3 of 4 (perhaps 7 of 8) runners would have to come from disciplines which do not produce fast runners. The event could cap the games in a manner which cannot be duplicated by pre-filmed fireworks, actors lip-sinking songs by others, or a parade of professional athletes who won gold medals in events they have worked at for 30 years. What I want to see, what I'm willing to pay for, is an event in which contestancs might potentially look foolish, where the team in last through 70% of the event could reasonably expect to place first because they have a bunch of rank amateurs who worked at something unfamiliar or pulled off soemthing nobody has ever even attempted before.
But, like I said, I have been wrong before, will be wrong in the future and may be wrong now. I've found difficulty locating anyone who agrees with my thoughts on diving. Some have laughed at the other prospective events I propose. Nobody really agrees with me on any of this and that's OK. I suppose I just see things differently. Now back to my ideas on team chemistry.
It amuses me when I read about a "blue ribbon panel" working together to solve some problem. The panel is usually made up of a bunch of "leaders" in some field who are expected to get together and do what they've always done, find the best solution. But these panels don't usually have any workhorses. Everyone is used to holding the reins. And often the work product of such a "blue ribbon" panel is what we call a "horse designed by a committee."
A horse designed by a committee is called a camel, a nasty beast which spits and bites while refusing to submit to most riders. Its back has a hump on which a sadle does not fit. It is a great pack animal - I've got nothing against camels per se - but a camel is not a horse - the west would not have been won were it not for the horse, if only camels were around! A "horse designed by a committee" in US parlance, is generally characterized by the lack of a unifying vision.
If you read much about softball recruiting, you get the overwhelming impression that college coaches are looking for entire teams made up of strong leaders. They want only girls who take charge, on the field and off, and push their teammates to be better. I can understand that concept but on the other hand, if someone is going to take the lead in any pursuit, somebody (or somebodies) is (are) going to have to submit to being led.
To me, the head coach is usually the general. His or her assistant coaches are the lieutenants and captains. The on-field leaders are really sergeants and the rest of the crew is typically privates of varying grades. The sergeant is probably the most interesting person in any military setting since he or she is supposed to both lead, sometimes harshly, while simultaneously submitting completely to being led by superior officers.
The sergeant must lead a small band to accomplish precisely what others have commanded to be done. The superiors have the overall vision. The sergeant must accomplish a small piece of that vision and he or she may not even know what the vision is. The sergeant must answer the question posed by grunts, "why are we doing this," swiftly and masterfully while obtaining total submission and getting the thing done in accordance with orders.
To me, what anyone putting together a team would be looking for is sergeants. Perhaps it is more complex than that - I want privates who, after gaining experience will be suitable for the role as sergeant, sergeants who will rise in grade over time, and perhaps one or two sergeants who aspire to one day becoming lieutenants, captains and even generals. But they must be willing to work initially as privates, earn the sergeant role, be willing to step into the role of lieutenant should the need arise, and respect that the general has earned his or her right to command.
"Leaders" are not always incapable of being led but the worst disagreements occur between two leaders who have slightly different visions to go with their large egoes. You do not often see big disagreements between a leader and the one submitting to being led. There may be skirmishes but these are usually resolved quickly. The biggest brawls, the wars, the bloodiest battles, occur where you have two seeking to prove they are top dog, two seeking to prove that their vision is the best one, two unwielding alpha males or females. And in nature, the alphas are willing to put the very existence of the pride at risk in order to secure and maintain alpha status.
This phenomenon is evident in every facet of nature - the alpha male or female is challenged by the rising star who either is defeated, leaving the alpha in his or her place, or wins the day, thereby becoming the new alpha. So has it been through the millenia in all things natural and all things human. So let it be written, so let it be done, so let it be recognized by everyone that this is human nature. Let it be acknowledged by all that this is as much a natural law as gravity. Someone must lead but that presupposes that someone must be led.
Further to the discussion, in any complex endeavor, there are specialized skills required to accomplish different subsets of the whole. A guy who can draw a picture of what a building is supposed to look like or diagram the plumbing, cooling or electrical systems may not be able to hit a nail in straight, lay out rebar, weld steel beams together or carry bricks up a ramp. Take the cooks out of the kitchen, have them serve tables while the wait staff does the cooking and what you get is a disaster. Place an investigator in charge of directing traffic through the crime scene area and we're all going to have to endure a horrendous traffic jam.
Society has been based on specialization for the entirety of its existence. Somebody was better at piercing the woolly mammoth with his spear. Somebody was better at carving out the edible parts than he was at bringing the thing down. Somebody was better at recognizing that we need to eat veggies with all that meat, or we're headed for severe irregularity, and then finding the veggies somewhere in the wild. Somebody said, "hey, I can make something out of the beast's skins and tusks that will keep us warm and help us on future hunts." Somebody built the shelter or led others to put the thing together. In all of human history and prehistory, a few were better at this or that than others and naturally they took on roles associated with their skill set.
Softball is almost as complicated a matter or project as anything else in human society. That's why we have coaches. That's why some of the coaches work with the infield or outfield, the catchers or pitchers. That is why we have girls who mostly play outfield, infield, pitch or catch. The skill set of the shortstop, while certainly compatible with that of other positions, is not always nearly identical. Third basemen don't necessarily play centerfield with as much skill as they do their regular spot. Catchers don't often sub at short or second. Our first baseman doesn't head out to center to fill a gap after injury. The pitcher doesn't usually go behind the plate when she's not pitching, the catcher doesn't usually take of her gear and relief pitch - indeed we discourage pitchers and catchers from pursuing the opposite number in youth ball because we see the two positions as somewhat incompatible.
Our leadoff hitter isn't usually ready to fill the clean-up role. We don't usually pinch hit the power hitter for the kid with high OBA when we need baserunners. We style our benches so we have flexibility and can offer up "different looks" when we need to.
Even within positions, we recognize that certain players bring different things to the table. We might have someone who can really hit playing the outfield while a weaker hitting, better fielding person sits the bench. We don't often do that with key defensive positions such as short or center. In the best of all possible worlds we would want our shortstop and outfielders to all be the best bats and gloves they can be. But when push comes to shove, we are willing to compromise one skill for another so as to have the best mix of players on the field. This is why, for example, in MLB, we see a .254 great defensive catcher remain in the big leagues while a .270 hitting outfielder gets sent down to the minors.
The more complicated and advanced a particular pursuit becomes, the greater the specialization. Baseball on the professional level is arguably much more advanced (specialized) than fastpitch. There are possibly more players in the minor leagues of baseball than there are playing college softball. And in baseball, we see pitchers who never hit, pitchers who only get the last 3-6 outs of any game, hitters who never play the field, etc. We can see the development of softball in the way that, as time progresses, fewer and fewer pitchers hit, fewer and fewer aces pitch every inning of three games against one team. There is slightly greater specialization with each passing year in this sport.
And when we put together entire rosters, we need to mix up the overall skill set, even at individual positions, in order to create the best, most balanced team we can. We might have one fireballing pitcher whose movement is weaker than the other kid who can bend the ball around a batter's head. We try to find up-pitchers, down-pitchers, screwballers, curveballers, lefties and righties, etc., in order to be able to show different looks should the need arise. More and more, there are pitching staffs rather than ace pitchers who throw every inning. And that development is how it should be. That development demonstrates the growth of the sport.
We want slappers, power hitters, contact hitters, good sacrifice bunters, draggers, those who thrive with runners on, those who set the table, in order to put together a good overall offense. It is extremely rare for a team to put up 9 batters who all can and often do hit the ball over the fence. It would be unusual for a team to have 9 slappers in the lineup. A far more frequent occurrence on a good team happens when a couple kids have high on base percentages but can't hit the ball far and a few kids can drive the ball but hit for lower averages or are too aggressive to walk much, and maybe hit for higher averages when anybody is on base than they do leading off innings.
Every sport, particularly team sport, that has been around long enough, experiences a growth in the specialization of its athletes. The more complex a game is, the more susceptible to specialization of its participants. The more complex a game is, the greater the number of players in the contest, the more the make-up of participants needs to be a complex mix not only of mechanical skills but also of leadership and other psychologically-based skills.
The occassion of this writing has something to do with the US softball team's loss in the gold medal game. I find that I'm not as upset by the loss as many other US-based softball purists I know. Personally, I don't like a contest in which possibility of loss does not exist. Right now, I guess the only team which has a reasonable chance to beat the US is Japan. Obviously, there were only 8 teams in the whole tourney and I think that maybe a mistake since all but those participant nations would be disinclined to watch any of the competition. Knowing that softball is no longer an Olympic game, hopefully just for the time being, I think, should it re-emerge, it could be changed for the better.
I would be offended if say the Ethiopian team were to make it to the medal game because they used a high-arc pitcher able to drop the ball into the strike zone from 35 feet up. But on the other hand, it would be interesting to see some sort of ambidextrous pitcher with a wicked curveball from either side who would switch her mitt in accordance to the batter. But that's all pretty much nonsensical rambling. What would make gold medals in softball more valuable to me is the possibility of any of several nations winning the thing and I believe that's the direction the sport will hopefully go.
A final observation, really the thing which got me going on this, is aside from it being OK to me for the US to have lost the gold, is it seems as if there wasn't quite enough diversity on Team USA's roster. I'm not talking racial, religious or other sociological diversity. What I'm referring to is leadership and skill set diversity.
Again, I could be wrong about this but I don't think the US pitching staff was emotionally diverse enough. We can all look to NCAA championships and recognize that when things got really tense, Cat Osterman has a proven tendency to get over-adrenalized and then overthrow her breaking stuff. I think we all know fully well that she needs to be in the 58-62 mph range. And when she gets up to 65, she is far more hittable. Further, when Abbott gets over-adrenalized, she can lose the plate or, worse, get called for taking too much time between pitches. I'm not sure where Jennie Finch fits into this. And I'm not sure any of it matters in the loss. But I do think the US pitching staff might have been composed differently, more diversely. And I think that also applies to the team as a whole. I believe there were too many leaders, not enough followers. I believe these things sometimes are only evident in the worst circumstances, the final contest. I believe any team relies upon chemistry in the final analysis. Chemistry is not disclosed when winning is happening as readily as oxygen is consumed. But when the air gets really thin, when the going gets almost impossible, then chemistry is revealed, and only the best put together machine or building can withstand the stress. And that's my quirky thought for the day.Labels: coaching, mental toughness, news, teams
 
|
|
|
