Iowamom23 posted:cabbage1 posted:Can anyone properly defend a high school Roster over 15 or 16 players based upon opportunity for the kids to get time on the field
I'm not a coach, I'm the parent of a kid who lettered in basketball, although I don't know that he played more than 10 minutes over a season. He wasn't very good, and he knew it, but he benefited from being on the team, and the team benefited from him being there (per the coach's comments at end of season and comments from other players on the team).
If the only criteria for deciding on the number of payers is getting time on the field, you may be right.
But it's not the only criteria.
Well, even using that criteria ("the opportunity for the kids to get time on the field"), I went back and checked last year's stats. Not counting the three pitchers who threw 2 IP, 2 IP, and 1 IP, there were 7 pitchers who got innings (low of 10, high of 51). All were POs. Excluding four hitters who got <10 PAs, there were 13 hitters who got 15 or more PAs (with the high being 99). So that's 20 kids right there that got time on the field. If you factored winter ball and summer ball in, it would be a much larger group who got "time on the field."
Each situation is different. Low 20s rosters seem normal around here. But I recognize there might be other places with different set ups (for example, fewer POs) where a lower number would make sense.