| 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 |
|
|
|
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
 
|
|
|
