Golfman25 posted:Stats4Gnats posted:ironhorse posted: Because some decisions simply have to be subjective. That's the nature of decision making sometimes.
Which is exactly why there are so many problems with parents or players questioning why they don’t get the same opportunities as someone else. When you say the best 9 players will be on the field but you refuse to say how you come up with the best, to me it’s either being disingenuous or being afraid to tell the truth for fear of controversy.
I think it is actually easy. Coach has to figure out what tools he favors. Does he like speed and small ball. Or is he looking for mashers. Measure those measurables -- speed, veto etc. Then put them in places to succeed. Speed in CF, and strong arms in cf and rf. Athletic with a strong arm at SS. Etc. etc. Coaches get in trouble when they don't do it somewhat objectively. For example, our coach has decided he's going with a young underclassman at CF next year. Good kid and that's probably his future. But he doesn't have a varsity arm yet. It will be a cluster as coaches take the extra base.
I agree with your point in principle. We measure a ton of stuff for that exact reason. To me there are still a lot of "un-measurable" things that will happen with a player in a game, which is why a coach has to make a best guess based on complete skill sets as to who has the best chance to succeed in this spot and who gives the team the best chance to win.
Things kids have to excel at that I have no way to truly measure objectively (although I've still try): Baseball IQ, dealing with adversity, responding to pressure, focus and re-focus, etc. Probably a lot more, but it's early for me.
This is a big fall for us trying to figure some of those things out for the Spring. Of course if a kid doesn't excel at some of those things listed, it's my job to help him develop that ability. But I've found that often the kids who come in with those positive traits as freshman are typically going to stay ahead of the kids who start out behind.