Promotions within a team

[scorekeeper]

For the tens of thousands of posts I’ve read, I’ve very seldom seen anyone talk about this subject, but I've always been intrigued by the possible answers and how I've seen such things take place. Its been very rare when I haven’t heard a coach tell his players they can earn a starting spot or more PT by “beating out” a player ahead of them, or improving on their own skills.

How do you measure such things so that you can explain not to just the player who got the promotion, but the one who’d got the demotion too, and let’s not forget those pesky parents?

[alpo]

With empirical data, of course...

[emmitt]

I think all teams run into this from time to time. For defense, it hard to justify either way if the kids are close in ability. We keep stats for defense purposes but defense isn't as simply as who has the fewest errors.

For offense we use stats to determine who bats where in the line up. We're an 8u team and use several creative stats such as percentages of balls put in play. This allows us to put our kids that makes the most contact at the front part of the lineup. If parents complain about why little Johnny is now hitting 9th, we pull out the stat sheet and show then why.

We try and do as little daddy ball as possible, but it still goes on a little bit. I'm one of our coaches, but refuse to tell the other coaches my opinions of my son. I let them decide where he plays and when he bats. It's not like that for all of our coaches, but I've only seen a few questionable decisions so far. It's a pretty tough job that is often overlooked.

[Jake Patterson]

I always started with data.

Also, I NEVER had a "starting line-up." I had nine players who happen to start on a particular day, especially at the start of the season. I always move players around as much as I could and always gave everyone an equal chance to succeed.... Much different concept than establishing a line-up and sticking with it.

[mudvnine]

I've always felt that the nine positions of baseball each have their own demands, needs, and subtleties . . . that for the most part, each require different skill sets held by different players. The coach's job was to identify each players abilities and match them to the appropriate position(s) within the game.

The longer one watches the game and evaluates players, the easier it is for him to identify the player's ability in front of him and project their playing ability and effectiveness at a particular position.

Now before you poo-poo this, remember the MLB baseball teams use this exact same system . . . they're called "scouts" and why not all players drafted advance through the system according to their draft number, but rather as how they can adjust to and within that particular system.

So, to make a long story short . . . while I believe "numbers" are one part of the equation . . . I believe there are far more subjective factors that determine a line up in a coach's mind and why some coaches are just more successful than others . . .

That's part of what makes baseball so great . . . IMO



BTW Jake, I like this quote and think it says alot . . .

Also, I NEVER had a "starting line-up." I had nine players who happen to start on a particular day, especially at the start of the season.

. . . Excellent!!

[skipper5]

I like stats. Slicing and dicing them, you name it.

But for me, in terms of putting the best team on the field any particular day, stats are secondary to seat-of-the-pants decisions, assuming there's been a reasonable look at the players in action. It goes without saying that the best situation is when I've got knowledge of how they've performed under pressure in prior seasons. But that's not necessarily available.

In terms of justifying roster decisions to others, stats are primary.

Sample size and "trend" are important stat considerations.

[songtitle]

From the upcoming bestseller "How to deal with overzealous Dads" , put little Johnny at SS for a pre-season scrimmage game. After the 3 errors, put the real SS in for the next scrimmage game. Eureka, Big Johnny never mentions SS again.

I have seen many coaches use technique this for various positions.

Basically, it helps to have 2 kids try out for each position. It is usually clear to everyone who the best kid is - no stats needed.

[scorekeeper]

I think all teams run into this from time to time. For defense, it hard to justify either way if the kids are close in ability. We keep stats for defense purposes but defense isn't as simply as who has the fewest errors.

For offense we use stats to determine who bats where in the line up. We're an 8u team and use several creative stats such as percentages of balls put in play. This allows us to put our kids that makes the most contact at the front part of the lineup. If parents complain about why little Johnny is now hitting 9th, we pull out the stat sheet and show then why.. . .

Please define percentage of balls put in play. I’m always looking for new metrics, and that might be a good one to look at.

What you do with the stat sheet to show parent’s why Johnny’s position in the lineup has moved sound like something virtually any parent would appreciate. While they might not agree with your logic, at least it would show them that you do have some kind of reasoned plan.

[scorekeeper]

I always started with data.

Also, I NEVER had a "starting line-up." I had nine players who happen to start on a particular day, especially at the start of the season. I always move players around as much as I could and always gave everyone an equal chance to succeed.... Much different concept than establishing a line-up and sticking with it.

Did holding to that philosophy become any more difficult as the age and level increased?

[skipper5]

From the upcoming bestseller "How to deal with overzealous Dads" , put little Johnny at SS for a pre-season scrimmage game. After the 3 errors, put the real SS in for the next scrimmage game. Eureka, Big Johnny never mentions SS again.

I have seen many coaches use technique this for various positions.

Basically, it helps to have 2 kids try out for each position. It is usually clear to everyone who the best kid is - no stats needed.

"Everyone" includes the player himself, who now has no reason to sulk or give anything less than 100% at the position to which he is assigned.

[mudvnine]

Did holding to that philosophy become any more difficult as the age and level increased?

Not answering for Jake, but in my own experience, the older the players got, the easier it was to make out the line up . . .

By the time HS rolls around, the players (not necessarily the parents ) have a pretty good idea of what position they should be playing and who is actually better than who.

I've never done it, but I bet that the players at HS level and above would probably come up with a pretty decent working line up amongst themselves if given the chance . . .

Not sure how I'll do it, but I may just experiment with this, this coming year . . .

[scorekeeper]

I've always felt that the nine positions of baseball each have their own demands, needs, and subtleties . . . that for the most part, each require different skill sets held by different players. The coach's job was to identify each players abilities and match them to the appropriate position(s) within the game.

The longer one watches the game and evaluates players, the easier it is for him to identify the player's ability in front of him and project their playing ability and effectiveness at a particular position.

Now before you poo-poo this, remember the MLB baseball teams use this exact same system . . . they're called "scouts" and why not all players drafted advance through the system according to their draft number, but rather as how they can adjust to and within that particular system.

Is it ok to poo-poo if one believes the MLB system isn’t the best one?

I’ve never doubted that some players fit some positions better than others, but I think it makes a huge difference in the level one is talking about. FI, up to HS, I really don’t see much reason to have players “locked” into a position. Actually, I don’t believer it’s the “best” way to proceed for HS either, but by that time it would take some major investments in time that would make it difficult if not impossible.

So, to make a long story short . . . while I believe "numbers" are one part of the equation . . . I believe there are far more subjective factors that determine a line up in a coach's mind and why some coaches are just more successful than others . . .

That's part of what makes baseball so great . . . IMO

Although I’m a big believer in them, I’m not pushing for the “numbers” to be either the sole or main determiner of whether Johnny gets to start at 2nd this week, while Tommy is relegated to the bench. But by the same token, I do believe its entirely possible that some coaches can prove to be more successful than others because of their ability to analyze the numbers better.

I guess I’m projecting my personal feelings into how this issue’s dealt with. I’ve always felt myself to be fairly pragmatic, even as a kid. If the coach told me I wasn’t going to start in RF because Bill has been doing much better in fielding practices, or has been hitting much better in BP, I could live with it. I might not believe it, but I could live with it, even if in my mind we were very close.

But, if I worked my butt off the next week or two and got to a point where I knew I was doing better at the things I was told I was deficient in compared to Bill, if I’m not given my chance, there’s gonna be a problem. Its not necessary to me to have indisputable proof for me to believe something, but I’ve never been one of those folks who believes what someone says, just because, unless I’m pretty ignorant about the subject matter.

[scorekeeper]

From the upcoming bestseller "How to deal with overzealous Dads" , put little Johnny at SS for a pre-season scrimmage game. After the 3 errors, put the real SS in for the next scrimmage game. Eureka, Big Johnny never mentions SS again.

I have seen many coaches use technique this for various positions.

Basically, it helps to have 2 kids try out for each position. It is usually clear to everyone who the best kid is - no stats needed.

I’ve seen similar things done very often over the years, and you’re correct, many times it becomes very clear why one kid starts and the other sits. But, its not at all unusual that just the opposite happens. What would have happened in your example if the 1st kid happened to have a great day, and the REAL SS happened to have a bad one? Chances are, the REAL SS is still gonna get to start anyway, but what does that tell that dad?

Perhaps my idea of what stats are is not the same as yours. To me there are game stats that reflect what transpires in games, and non-game stats which is what transpires in practices or scrimmages.

There’s normally no way to compare game stats between a regular player and someone trying to break into the lineup as regular, so comparing their numbers isn’t really fair to either one. But what about practices?

[scorekeeper]

Not answering for Jake, but in my own experience, the older the players got, the easier it was to make out the line up . . .

By the time HS rolls around, the players (not necessarily the parents ) have a pretty good idea of what position they should be playing and who is actually better than who.

I've never done it, but I bet that the players at HS level and above would probably come up with a pretty decent working line up amongst themselves if given the chance . . .

Not sure how I'll do it, but I may just experiment with this, this coming year . . .

I’ve seen I done more than a few times at the HS level, not for real games, but for practice games or scrimmages. Its difficult to judge how well or poorly the choices are because its only for one game.

One of the things I’ve seen is where the coach gets the players in a team meeting, hands them a bunch of hitting stats with no names on them, and tells the team to come up with a lineup. I’ve seen the process done a few times, and I’ve seen the results a few other times, and some pretty wild things can come out of it. IOW, it turns into a “teachable moment”.

But by far, the thing I think most people would be surprised at, is watching the process and hearing the reasoning. It’s a great exercise for some of those Feb practices where its too rainy/snowy and/or cold to go outside.

[azmatsfan]

For the tens of thousands of posts I’ve read, I’ve very seldom seen anyone talk about this subject, but I've always been intrigued by the possible answers and how I've seen such things take place. Its been very rare when I haven’t heard a coach tell his players they can earn a starting spot or more PT by “beating out” a player ahead of them, or improving on their own skills.

How do you measure such things so that you can explain not to just the player who got the promotion, but the one who’d got the demotion too, and let’s not forget those pesky parents?

There are so many variables that go into who is in the starting line-up, it's not something than can be easily measured. Maybe one shortstop has a more consistent arm, while another has better range. Or maybe one catcher is better at blocking pitches, another has a stronger arm, and another is better leader on the field. One can probably make an argument for any of the above.

With the age and level I coach (8-12 Little League) I tell kids that before they can pitch, catch, or play more SS, they need to demonstrate to me in practice that they can throw strikes, catch the ball, or field the position respectively. Then they'll get the opportunity to play the position in the games. I don't play every kid in the games at every position they want to play, but all the kids play a variety of positions and I play a variety of players at every position. (As opposed to the teams I see where the same two kids play SS and P the first 3 innings, then they switch places for the last 3.)

[Jake Patterson]

From the upcoming bestseller "How to deal with overzealous Dads" , put little Johnny at SS for a pre-season scrimmage game. After the 3 errors, put the real SS in for the next scrimmage game. Eureka, Big Johnny never mentions SS again.

I have seen many coaches use technique this for various positions.

Basically, it helps to have 2 kids try out for each position. It is usually clear to everyone who the best kid is - no stats needed.

Hmm.... I am uncertain how I feel about setting up a child to fail to keep his dad at bay.

[Jake Patterson]

Did holding to that philosophy become any more difficult as the age and level increased?

No I found it easier as they got older.

[mudvnine]

Is it ok to poo-poo if one believes the MLB system isn’t the best one?

Sure, if you can come up with a better one . . .

I’ve never doubted that some players fit some positions better than others, but I think it makes a huge difference in the level one is talking about. FI, up to HS, I really don’t see much reason to have players “locked” into a position. Actually, I don’t believer it’s the “best” way to proceed for HS either, but by that time it would take some major investments in time that would make it difficult if not impossible.

I tend to agree with you on this regarding younger divisions, however, a child's safety is first and foremost, that I sometimes believe is not always taken into consideration by overzealous parents, but that's for another current thread.

There are some players, whose physical abilities and capabilities (or lack there of) simply make it unsafe for them to be put in certain baseball scenarios . . .

Although I’m a big believer in them, I’m not pushing for the “numbers” to be either the sole or main determiner of whether Johnny gets to start at 2nd this week, while Tommy is relegated to the bench. But by the same token, I do believe its entirely possible that some coaches can prove to be more successful than others because of their ability to analyze the numbers better.

The "numbers" cannot evaluate the many factors that must play into the equation . . . at least not how I've ever had them presented to me.

What numbers equate to range, arm strength, first step correctness, decision making, game/situation awareness, fearlessness, and competitiveness to name a few? Some coaches might refer to these as the "intangibles" . . . things they can't empirically quantify, but what makes one player standout over another . . .

I guess I’m projecting my personal feelings into how this issue’s dealt with. I’ve always felt myself to be fairly pragmatic, even as a kid. If the coach told me I wasn’t going to start in RF because Bill has been doing much better in fielding practices, or has been hitting much better in BP, I could live with it. I might not believe it, but I could live with it, even if in my mind we were very close.

But, if I worked my butt off the next week or two and got to a point where I knew I was doing better at the things I was told I was deficient in compared to Bill, if I’m not given my chance, there’s gonna be a problem. Its not necessary to me to have indisputable proof for me to believe something, but I’ve never been one of those folks who believes what someone says, just because, unless I’m pretty ignorant about the subject matter.

Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with "proof" or ignorance of the subject matter, it's strictly a coach's subjective perception of a player's overall ability to contribute to the team; and again, why some coaches are more successful than others.

Think of any position and the characteristics of players that have excelled in that position over the years . . . are there commonalities in their physical abilities, mental make up, and experience? I personally answer that question "yes" and typically put players in the line up that closest resemble "those" players that "represent" the best attributes for the position.

[emmitt]

Please define percentage of balls put in play. I’m always looking for new metrics, and that might be a good one to look at.

What you do with the stat sheet to show parent’s why Johnny’s position in the lineup has moved sound like something virtually any parent would appreciate. While they might not agree with your logic, at least it would show them that you do have some kind of reasoned plan.

We calculate this by percentage of ball that get hit in fair territory. We exclude walks and strike outs. We want kids that make contact at the front of our lineup. We stress that our kids are very aggressive at the plate and not look for walks. Walks still happen though. We have some kids that know the strike zone pretty well. For example, our number 2 hitter is very comfortable taking a pitch or two to allow our leadoff batter to steal. He hardly ever strikes out and has around 80% of his at bats he puts the ball in play. He's not the most powerful hitter on our team, but he does swing hard and usually hits hard line drives or grounders. Our number 3 guys is similar to our number 2 guy. After that, our big hitters come up. It seems to be working so far.

I'm not sure if all of the coaches on our team would agree, but to me this is the most valuable offensive stat that we keep in developing hitters at this young age.

We also track strikeouts swinging vs. taking strike three. We don't like our batters taking strike three. we want them aggressive, but we also have two different stages that our kids are in right now. We have the kids in the front of the order that know not to swing at a strike one pitch that is down and outside. We'd rather them try to get a better pitch to hit.

We have one hitter who is taking a lot of strikeouts looking. We tell him not to think and if he can hit the ball be aggressive and take his cuts. Eventually we'll get him more disciplined, but right now he's way to tentative and nervous at the plate. With a kid like this we praise him for swinging the bat even if he does strikeout swinging.

Emmitt

[Ursa Major]

I'm a little surprised that Jake hasn't jumped in here a little bit harder as to this issue: What is it that we are trying to achieve by having kids on our team? Are we out to win games and little else? If so, fine -- go finetune the stats and the seat-of-your-pants and determine who has the best chance to earn you a win on any particular day. But, at least up to and including high school junior varsity, your jobs (and you pick the order here) are to:

(a) make sure the kids have a decent experience (which may or may not be defined as fun);

(b) learn something about life and teamwork so they advance as young people;

(c) learn something about baseball and develop their baseball skills so that they can move to the next level; and

(d) win some ball games -- which among these values should most definitely be last.

So, juggling your starting lineup is a good technique: to reward kids for working hard, to see what kids can do at different spots, to keep all kids focused and motivated at practice, and to let kids develop for their ongoing baseball careers (as many kids are just late bloomers and may well -- if given a chance now -- stay with the game and succeed).

Emmitt, with all due respect, I think trying to either decide or justify a starting lineup at that level (8u) is (a) a mistaken way to try to apply those values (who cares who your best player is at that level?), and (b) a road to getting parents involved (as some math whiz is going to massage the numbers and badger you with an argument that by your logic his kid should be playing SS and pitcher every game). As long as every kid is getting a reasonable chance to show his stuff at positions he's shown an interest in playing and an effort at learning, the debate should end there. And, I'd never, ever let a parent complain about positioning in the batting order, as that becomes a zero sum game where some other kid has to get moved down in the batting order. At most, tell them that you want to have a mix of players so that you have a decent chance to get players on base every inning (and don't tell them who you think the strong and weak players in any given lineup segment are), and end the discussion there. Maybe remind them that the last two players in the lineup have the best chance of scoring as -- if they get on base -- the heavy lumber has a better chance of knocking them in.

Originally Posted by songtitle From the upcoming bestseller "How to deal with overzealous Dads" , put little Johnny at SS for a pre-season scrimmage game. After the 3 errors, put the real SS in for the next scrimmage game. Eureka, Big Johnny never mentions SS again.

I have seen many coaches use technique this for various positions.

Hmm.... I am uncertain how I feel about setting up a child to fail to keep his dad at bay.

Kids and Dads can tell when you pull this, if you don't give them a fair shot. Is that your goal -- to find ways to shut up the fathers? (I know one kid who was a promising lefty pitcher who just tightened up in games and lost velocity. He joined a new team as a 13 y/o and his dad encouraged the manager to give him a shot. Well, he got bombed on his first time out, and when the manager came to take him out, he waited until the kid was a few steps on his walk back to the dugout, and then boomed, "And tell your Dad to quit emailing me!")

Personal story: Ursa Minor was in a summer practice/development which we joined expressly because the head of the program assured me that he would have a shot at pitching in their practice games. (Understand that this was just for development -- scores were hardly kept.) As we got to the last three games of the summer, UM hadn't even been pitching in practice (e.g., bullpens or BP), much less in games. So I finally emailed the head guy and reminded him of his promise and asked if they could at least watch him pitch in practice to give him some tips. Two days later they had a doubleheader scheduled in a nearby town with a very hot climate, and UM played the leftfield for all seven innings of the first game. Two minutes before the second game started, the manager told him he was starting the second game and threw him out on the mound with no bullpen warmup -- just the 8 - 10 pitches allotted on the mound. I can see no other reason for doing this other than as a "let's show meddling Dads what happens when they get their wishes". The rest of the story: UM walked the first two batters and struggled, but only gave up two runs in the first inning, and then pitched a shutout second inning against a very good team. Ultimately, the situation probably strengthened him, but I doubt if that's what the manager had in mind when he pulled that stunt.

If you really think the kid isn't ready, set a goal for him in practice (e.g., cleanly fielding ten grounders in a row), and then give him one or two innings in a game. If he does okay, build on that practice and game success. If he doesn't, pull him off but make it a challenge to improve, and hope that the next time out he doesn't suffer from jitters. (In higher levels, perhaps explain to the dad that you see his future being more promising at another position.) But make it clear that you're trying to improve him, rather than condemn him as a failure on the basis of messing up at his first audition.

[Jake Patterson]

I'm a little surprised that Jake hasn't jumped in here a little bit harder as to this issue: What is it that we are trying to achieve by having kids on our team? Are we out to win games and little else? If so, fine -- go finetune the stats and the seat-of-your-pants and determine who has the best chance to earn you a win on any particular day. But, at least up to and including high school junior varsity, your jobs (and you pick the order here) are to:

(a) make sure the kids have a decent experience (which may or may not be defined as fun);

(b) learn something about life and teamwork so they advance as young people;

(c) learn something about baseball and develop their baseball skills so that they can move to the next level; and

(d) win some ball games -- which among these values should most definitely be last.

These discussions are difficult as they tend not to be age specific. And the answers are very dependent upon age and level.

My views about youth ball are well known.
Pulling from previous discussion on this topic... several thoughts:

No one knows for sure who will excell and who will not until the child is post-pubescent. Anything before that is a crap shoot. Let them play anywhere they can. There ARE no prima donna 8 y/o's. We should avoid pigeon holing any child.

If we consider one position more important than another so will the kids. My best player WASN'T always at SS and it takes nine to play the game. I consider the catcher more important than SS. In HS you can make do with a mediocre SS, but not a mediocre catcher.

In HS starting positions are earned through performance both on the field and through practices. I never had a "starting line-up" for several reasons.
a.) It needed to be earned every game,
b.) it gave everybody a chance to start,
c.) everyone was ready to play,
d.) and nobody got a big head.

Any player who felt they had a lock on a position usually sat the bench. I've told the story several times of sending my best player packing several times here... "Coach you don't have the guts to sit me - you need me." See ya....

For youth ball - teach them every position.

[scorekeeper]

There are so many variables that go into who is in the starting line-up, it's not something than can be easily measured. Maybe one shortstop has a more consistent arm, while another has better range. Or maybe one catcher is better at blocking pitches, another has a stronger arm, and another is better leader on the field. One can probably make an argument for any of the above.

I agree 110%, but that wasn’t what I was asking, or at least wasn’t what I intended to ask.

I wasn’t asking how a lineup was determined, but rather once it was, how the players who weren’t in it could displace ones that were.

Let’s say 2 players tried out for 2nd base. After several practices, one was picked as the starter, and the other as a bench player. How does the kid that wasn’t picked, ever beat the other one out? What do you tell that kid and his parents the boy can do to earn that precious starting spot, and how do you go about measuring it?

[Ursa Major]

I wasn’t asking how a lineup was determined, but rather once it was, how the players who weren’t in it could displace ones that were.

Let’s say 2 players tried out for 2nd base. After several practices, one was picked as the starter, and the other as a bench player. How does the kid that wasn’t picked, ever beat the other one out? What do you tell that kid and his parents the boy can do to earn that precious starting spot, and how do you go about measuring it?

Your question assumes that you actually "name" a "starter" at some point, and I think Jake describes the pitfalls of doing so. This elevates the "starting" position to something that kids and parents obsess on. At almost every level short of the majors, there will be a lot of moving players around (e.g., in the minors, today's starter may be on another ballclub in the system tomorrow, and in any case you're preparing your team and the big club by having all players ready if needed).

Azmatsfan expressly was making it clear that he coaches -- and was discussing -- such decisions at the 8 - 12 y/o level. There, you'll have even more jumbling of positions.

But, assuming that we're talking about HS varsity and it's clear that you'll have "starters", I think you will have opportunities with most positions to try out other players without tension because your 'starters' will have schedule conflicts and be unavailable. Or you'll just say, we're giving you a rest and letting Bobby have some time. And if Bobby does well and starts the next game, make sure that the original "starter" has some subbing time during games to play and 'regain' his 'spot', if it's that important to be in that anointed spot.

But, again, if you start with the proposition that 'everybody plays and everybody has a role' and mix your starters up and work everyone into the game at some point (though not in any one game, to be sure), you don't need to and don't wan't to anoint starters, the tension level should be alleviated. For the kid who's originally getting less playing time, you can give him the carrot by saying, "if you work hard and improve in practice, you'll get some playing time and if you play well in games, you'll get more playing time." But that's something that should be understood by everyone. But, by making it an either/or situation -- you either start or you hardly play at all -- you make the starting position too important and undermine team morale by having the subs secretly hoping that the starters fail.

[scorekeeper]

. . . The "numbers" cannot evaluate the many factors that must play into the equation . . . at least not how I've ever had them presented to me.

I agree up to a point, but on the other hand, I know for a fact and have proven many times over that many times coach’s perceptions about certain things are incorrect, and because of that their whole perception of that player is colored.

What numbers equate to range, arm strength, first step correctness, decision making, game/situation awareness, fearlessness, and competitiveness to name a few? Some coaches might refer to these as the "intangibles" . . . things they can't empirically quantify, but what makes one player standout over another . . .

Well, RF is certainly one way to measure many of those things. While it isn’t perfect, it is a way to put a number on it. The problem is, those things are measured in practices, and if the player doesn’t get in games, there’s just no way at all for him to compete for that job using that metric.

Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with "proof" or ignorance of the subject matter, it's strictly a coach's subjective perception of a player's overall ability to contribute to the team; and again, why some coaches are more successful than others.

Which is why it troubles me so much to know its just a matter of blind luck for a player to be put into one system that might choose him to be a starter, as opposed to another system where he came in 3rd in a 2 horse race.

Think of any position and the characteristics of players that have excelled in that position over the years . . . are there commonalities in their physical abilities, mental make up, and experience? I personally answer that question "yes" and typically put players in the line up that closest resemble "those" players that "represent" the best attributes for the position.

That makes perfect sense. So what do you tell a player you determine to be lacking, how they can make up that deficit, and overtake the guy ahead of them? “Just keep working hard, and when you’re ready I’ll know”?

[scorekeeper]

Your question assumes that you actually "name" a "starter" at some point, and I think Jake describes the pitfalls of doing so.

And I believe Jake is spot on! Unfortunately, I suspect even he would admit that his way is definitely not the norm.

This elevates the "starting" position to something that kids and parents obsess on.

Sadly, that’s true, but isn’t that exactly what we beat into the kid’s heads when we push them into positions where they have to “earn” a spot on the team? Just making the team is only the 1st step. I don’t know of many players who bust hump to make a team and are then “satisfied” with ridin’ the pine.

At almost every level short of the majors, there will be a lot of moving players around (e.g., in the minors, today's starter may be on another ballclub in the system tomorrow, and in any case you're preparing your team and the big club by having all players ready if needed).

True. But a lot of that is because of very different evaluation techniques on the different teams. I think in general, players are broken down into MIFrs, Corner IFrs, OFrs, Catchers, Starting pitchers, Middle Relivers, Short Relivers, and utility players. Depending on the organization’s/team’s needs, players will cross boundaries, but other than that, I don’t think its very “normal”. The lower the level, the more likely players will cross the boundaries, but I think that’s because they aren’t fully matured yet.

But, assuming that we're talking about HS varsity and it's clear that you'll have "starters", I think you will have opportunities with most positions to try out other players without tension because your 'starters' will have schedule conflicts and be unavailable. Or you'll just say, we're giving you a rest and letting Bobby have some time. And if Bobby does well and starts the next game, make sure that the original "starter" has some subbing time during games to play and 'regain' his 'spot', if it's that important to be in that anointed spot.

I think that might be the way people think it is and want it to be, but from what I can tell, It doesn’t happen nearly as often as one would think. And often when it does, its because the opponent is weak or the game isn’t very meaningful, and often, not always, those performances are blown off.

I no longer track starts, but I fill out the lineup in the scorebook for every game, and here’s the impression I get for how players “move” up or down. A few brain farts is ok, but not the same brain fart! FI, Getting picked off twice in a game, missing the cutoff man a couple times, missing a few hitting or defensive signs, etc, is likely gonna put you on the coach’s doo-doo list, and a 3rd transgression, or even something close, or displaying a tendency to have the same thing happen regularly is gonna get you splinters in you’re a$$.

Being a hustler isn’t likely gonna get an OF’r in the game as a 3B, so its important that non-starters especially can play as many positions as possible, hit the ball solidly when called on to pinch hit, run the bases intelligently when called on the pinch run, and play solid defense when called on to fill in in the field.

But, unless the transgression is a major one, the original “starter” is gonna get his job back, especially if he’s a 2nd or 3rd year player.

But, again, if you start with the proposition that 'everybody plays and everybody has a role' and mix your starters up and work everyone into the game at some point (though not in any one game, to be sure), you don't need to and don't wan't to anoint starters, the tension level should be alleviated.

Well, I do recognize that to be a grand system. but its not one I’ve ever had the pleasure to be associated with in any way. The closest I’ve ever come was my boy’s 1st LLI Major’s coach. That’s when the “Time” stats I do were developed.

For the kid who's originally getting less playing time, you can give him the carrot by saying, "if you work hard and improve in practice, you'll get some playing time and if you play well in games, you'll get more playing time." But that's something that should be understood by everyone.

And that’s pretty much what prompted me to make the OP.

How does that kid measure his own performance? Does the coach sit down and critique him after every practice? IMHO that would be great, but I don’t see it happen very often. If he were playing, he could look at his performance and compare it to that of the player he’s competing with for the position. But when he only gets 1 AB a game, or only plays against a few batters, its difficult to make that self-evaluation.

But, by making it an either/or situation -- you either start or you hardly play at all -- you make the starting position too important and undermine team morale by having the subs secretly hoping that the starters fail.

HALLELUJAH! Tell it like it is my brother!

The sad thing is, it doesn’t mean those kids are mean or aren’t “team” players, it just means they want to play! How the different roles are accepted, depends a great deal depends on the player too. FI, if the kid has been considered a stud since t-ball and suddenly gets on a pretty good HS team and has to sit a great deal, he’s gonna likely take it entirely different than a kid who’s always had to fight for his playing time.