We have a thread going nicely regarding "leadership"
There is another aspect I find important and that is "coachability"---how many HS stars going into college has this gift?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Great question TR!
A kid may be considered coachable in HS because he is at the top of the heap, might not be challenged, or in a situation where he was coddled by the coach. What happens in college where everyone is on similiar planes is where you find out that "coachable" intangible. Many HS stars go down the crapper in college because of this issue. It can also be looked at as a life lesson on how you handle "tougher" situations.
A kid may be considered coachable in HS because he is at the top of the heap, might not be challenged, or in a situation where he was coddled by the coach. What happens in college where everyone is on similiar planes is where you find out that "coachable" intangible. Many HS stars go down the crapper in college because of this issue. It can also be looked at as a life lesson on how you handle "tougher" situations.
quote:Originally posted by rz1:
Great question TR!
A kid may be considered coachable in HS because he is at the top of the heap, might not be challenged, or in a situation where he was coddled by the coach. What happens in college where everyone is on similiar planes is where you find out that "coachable" intangible. Many HS stars go down the crapper in college because of this issue. It can also be looked at as a life lesson on how you handle "tougher" situations.
I disagree in general. Just recall your coaching days, especially Little League. There were always the kids who were easy to coach, and a few who drove you nuts some times.
I also don't think another player or competitor changes a kids personality that easy and that quickly, and at the moment he sets foot on campus.
Personally, I see the same kid I coached as an 8-9 year old still being very coachable from his Travel coach, HS coach, summer coach, and MLB scout he played for. Various levels of play, higher levels of teammates, and a span of 11 years.
He is what he is. Easily coached!!...and an element of the 6th tool
I see your point and thinking back to LL all my "better" kids I considered coachable except for a couple ADD kids that were good but always on the edge. Those coachable kids always had passion, respect, and a great work ethic thats how I define coachable. In college all those kids are bunched together so maybe a second "coachable" standard needs to be developed. Sometimes a kids developing personality can affect whether that kid will be coachable at the next level.quote:Originally posted by OLDSLUGGER8:
I disagree in general. Just recall your coaching days, especially Little League. There were always the kids who were easy to coach, and a few who drove you nuts some times.
I also don't think another player or competitor changes a kids personality that easy and that quickly, and at the moment he sets foot on campus.
With that said I understand your point OldSlugger.
i agree with rz1,
in high school if your one of the better players and have frequent success you will be reluctant to change anything to get better. coach will tell you something but what does he know, im hitting .400 and playing well. then the player continues playing or pitching well and evryone suspects you are coachable.
when that kid gets to college he must correct things and it is hard to do. he has done it his way and had lots of success in the past, why change.
if you produce then you must be good and coachable, or you really study the game and can coach yourself.
in high school if your one of the better players and have frequent success you will be reluctant to change anything to get better. coach will tell you something but what does he know, im hitting .400 and playing well. then the player continues playing or pitching well and evryone suspects you are coachable.
when that kid gets to college he must correct things and it is hard to do. he has done it his way and had lots of success in the past, why change.
if you produce then you must be good and coachable, or you really study the game and can coach yourself.
Rock 44, I think you are assuming that just because a kid is doing well, he won't listen or change. Isn't it possible that kids who do well....know to attribute that to good coaching? Think that a coachable kid remains that way because they have traits that are probably ingrained....through upbringing and love of the game......just as those traits can make for a leader.
LadyNmom,
Not because Rock44 agreed with me (which lately is not the norm) but I thought it was refreshing to bring a players perspective into this. As parents we KNOW what it's all about, just ask us. I agree wholeheartedly what you are saying, at the same time I find Rock44 insight a fresh "firsthand" look inside the head of a player.
Rock-on Rock44
Not because Rock44 agreed with me (which lately is not the norm) but I thought it was refreshing to bring a players perspective into this. As parents we KNOW what it's all about, just ask us. I agree wholeheartedly what you are saying, at the same time I find Rock44 insight a fresh "firsthand" look inside the head of a player.
Rock-on Rock44
quote:Isn't it possible that kids who do well....know to attribute that to good coaching? Think that a coachable kid remains that way because they have traits that are probably ingrained....through upbringing and love of the game......just as those traits can make for a leader
Another testimony to the value of the 6th tool. How is the player in pre-game, practice, with his teammates, WITH HIS COACHES. Is there a general respect for all those components.
It is a game based on failure, so who really has the right "to cop an attitude" when the humbleness is peaking around the corner!!
ladyNmom, not saying that he wont change but if your having success youll wanna keep doing it the same way.
i've seen and known a lot of kids that wont listen to what the coach has to say and try it their way. these kids can harm team chemistry, because everyone can feel the tension.
i've seen and known a lot of kids that wont listen to what the coach has to say and try it their way. these kids can harm team chemistry, because everyone can feel the tension.
One of the highest compliments I ever had a coach pay my son was this year when one of his football coaches told me that he was very coachable.
I think this is a hugely underrated quality. I have dealt with several kids in youth ball who I would call uncoachable, and the quality usually comes with other attitudes, mostly bad.
I think this is a hugely underrated quality. I have dealt with several kids in youth ball who I would call uncoachable, and the quality usually comes with other attitudes, mostly bad.
Sometimes that "coachable" word is thrown around rather freely. How many times do we hear a coach say that player X is not very coachable? Not often.. What is really kind of hard to understand is that coaches in all sports mention that many of their incoming players are very "coachable" without ever coaching them. Is that just a hear-say statement or an optimistic wish.
I do agree that those who earn the tag throughout the levels they've played, learned it at a very early age. It is not something you wake up with.
I do agree that those who earn the tag throughout the levels they've played, learned it at a very early age. It is not something you wake up with.
There are no generalizations, but TR's original post asked about HS stars going on to college ball...and that is what I'm addresssing (Rock44...He did not ask about HS players or teams in general):
I'm saying that a large percentage of these "stars" who go on to college ball, are hard workers, love the game, are leaders; if just by example, and are coachable...
....because so few get from HS ball to College ball...that unless you have a mighty fine fast ball....you better have these other qualities or you won't make it.....
I'm saying that a large percentage of these "stars" who go on to college ball, are hard workers, love the game, are leaders; if just by example, and are coachable...
....because so few get from HS ball to College ball...that unless you have a mighty fine fast ball....you better have these other qualities or you won't make it.....
quote:I'm saying that a large percentage of these "stars" who go on to college ball, are hard workers, love the game, are leaders; if just by example, and are coachable...
i agree most are.
quote:Originally posted by Rock 44:
[QUOTE]I'm saying that a large percentage of these "stars" who go on to college ball, are hard workers, love the game, are leaders; if just by example, and are coachable...
i agree most are.[/QUOTE
...and I agree also. They have made the leap of fath to trust the coaching because they chose to be there.
Here is an aspect of what being "coachable" means to me, as it is something that my wife and I find to be present in our Son. For example, my Son utilizes a hitting coach, when he arrives for instruction on occasion the coach will ask him to do a drill that is not comfortable and that he does not understand the significance of. He will do whatever the coach asks him to do whether he experiences success immediately or not. He will swing until blisters are forming on his hands in a way that is unnatural for him if that is what the drill calls for. If he is shown how to correct / or change footwork around the bag turning a DP he will learn it even if it is uncomfortable to do. He will do what the coach wants him to do. He is "coachable" and shows deference to his coach. This has helped him become a successful ballplayer. It is his personality, who he is. He can't be different.
I think someone who is coachable is an individual who wishes to please his coach. If he has good coaching then his game will prosper.
I think someone who is coachable is an individual who wishes to please his coach. If he has good coaching then his game will prosper.
Was talking to a college coach several months ago who said he thinks there are two kinds of coachability. The first is coachability in the traditional sense -- willingness to listen, to be open to new approaches, etc. The second kind of coachability is being able to really understand what the coach is saying and having the body awareness to actually apply it.
He used as an example a senior returning all-conference player who struggled a bit at the plate early in the season. The coaches wanted him to try holding his hands a little higher and, to get the teaching point across, they wanted him to first hold his hands as high as Craig Counsell does and take a few swings. He tried to do what they asked and, after a few swings, they asked him how it felt. He said it felt "really weird" to hold his hands that high. Well, the point of the story is that he had not raised his hands by the 8-10 inches it would have taken to copy Counsell. Instead, he had raised them only about 2 inches, but he lacked the body awareness to realize that he was not doing what the coaches had asked him to do. He was "coachable" is the first sense of the word, but not in the second.
He used as an example a senior returning all-conference player who struggled a bit at the plate early in the season. The coaches wanted him to try holding his hands a little higher and, to get the teaching point across, they wanted him to first hold his hands as high as Craig Counsell does and take a few swings. He tried to do what they asked and, after a few swings, they asked him how it felt. He said it felt "really weird" to hold his hands that high. Well, the point of the story is that he had not raised his hands by the 8-10 inches it would have taken to copy Counsell. Instead, he had raised them only about 2 inches, but he lacked the body awareness to realize that he was not doing what the coaches had asked him to do. He was "coachable" is the first sense of the word, but not in the second.
Good discussion - but you need to ask first, what exactly is good coaching? Are you really uncoachable if you decide after some reflection that the coach's suggestions will not work? Remember, success at each level means learning different skills - a pitcher who tries to hit the outside corner of the plate in HS, will have to pitch inside in college or the pros. How does one measure a coach?
Is it success on the field?
Is it the worst player feeling valued and gets better?
Is it the number of players who move up a level?
How many?
From who's perspective do we judge, the player's, parent's or athletic director's?
Do you just know it when you see it?
"Coaching" can also ruin or mar a good swing, or a pitcher or in extreme cases, create an injury. Not all coaches are created equal, no matter how well-intentioned. It can't simply be victories, as the team that finished last could very well have the coach who taught the most and the best, not the one with the stud pitchers and hitters.
A smart player, who knows about his swing, or his delivery may appropriately listen to the coach, but then discard what he says without being labeled as "uncoachable." Perhaps there are not that many of those players at a young age, but we all have seen a few. Some coaches want to put their stamp on a kid, whether there is a problem or not.
I have nothing but respect for the coaches my son has had, but I think we all have seen some negligence out on the field over the years of seeing other teams.
And as Oak suggests -you have to know enough to recognize good coaching and have the body awareness to implement it. I will add that you have to have good listening skills or an adequate attention span combined with the coach being a good communicator. How many times will all these things go together? The most knowledgable coach cannot put across his points without some cooperation.
Is it success on the field?
Is it the worst player feeling valued and gets better?
Is it the number of players who move up a level?
How many?
From who's perspective do we judge, the player's, parent's or athletic director's?
Do you just know it when you see it?
"Coaching" can also ruin or mar a good swing, or a pitcher or in extreme cases, create an injury. Not all coaches are created equal, no matter how well-intentioned. It can't simply be victories, as the team that finished last could very well have the coach who taught the most and the best, not the one with the stud pitchers and hitters.
A smart player, who knows about his swing, or his delivery may appropriately listen to the coach, but then discard what he says without being labeled as "uncoachable." Perhaps there are not that many of those players at a young age, but we all have seen a few. Some coaches want to put their stamp on a kid, whether there is a problem or not.
I have nothing but respect for the coaches my son has had, but I think we all have seen some negligence out on the field over the years of seeing other teams.
And as Oak suggests -you have to know enough to recognize good coaching and have the body awareness to implement it. I will add that you have to have good listening skills or an adequate attention span combined with the coach being a good communicator. How many times will all these things go together? The most knowledgable coach cannot put across his points without some cooperation.
great post brod, the best way to learn is to take in as much as possible. use the advise or leave it, either way you will be improving your knowledge of the game.
I am in total agreement with you also Brod. We encourage our Son to listen to the Coach and be respectful, but if somthing dosn't jive with what he knows to be true he does what he knows how to do. In a situation where he is with a trainer, he trains as instructed. In a game he plays like he knows how.
quote:Originally posted by rz1:
Great question TR!
A kid may be considered coachable in HS because he is at the top of the heap, might not be challenged, or in a situation where he was coddled by the coach. What happens in college where everyone is on similiar planes is where you find out that "coachable" intangible. Many HS stars go down the crapper in college because of this issue. It can also be looked at as a life lesson on how you handle "tougher" situations.
I disagree in general. Just recall your coaching days, especially Little League. There were always the kids who were easy to coach, and a few who drove you nuts some times.
I also don't think another player or competitor changes a kids personality that easy and that quickly, and at the moment he sets foot on campus.
Personally, I see the same kid I coached as an 8-9 year old still being very coachable from his Travel coach, HS coach, summer coach, and MLB scout he played for. Various levels of play, higher levels of teammates, and a span of 11 years.
This is a very intriguing thread with many terrific thoughts. However, I think there is some confusion based on the level of play. From my reading what TR posted and rz1 supplemented, the discussion is about the transition from high school to college and the "ability" to be coachable. This is about the ability of a coach to "drive" you and coach you to bring out talents that you never knew existed, or at least get the premium from the talents your son possesses.
In that transition, I think TR and rz1, and others, have made excellent points. I tend to disagree with OS8, brod and Rock44 to an extent. At the college level, this isn't about being a good kid or not, a kid who tries his best or not. This is about the ability of a player to reach a very high quality of college play where most of the coaches know what they are doing. Most of these players were THE MVP in high school someplace and now everyone they face was an MVP.
For most, their skills will be challenged as never before. If they are not "coachable" as rz1 notes, they will fail! In college, the term coachable, to me at least, isn't defined by being a "good" kid or something other than that. It is defined by being able listen to a good college coach who makes adjustments or changes to the way you play the game. They do that because you are struggling at the college level, the coach knows the way you "used" to/currently play either won't succeed at the college level or the way you used to play is getting in the way of your being a better player. That player who is coachable will not only be able to listen and make the adjustments, he will be successful with them. The level of competition/scouting will then catch up, and they need to adjust again.
When you get to college, you find there are some real fine, terrific former high school players that either will not listen, they listen, try to make the adjustments and can't, they make the adjustments but cannot be successful/execute the adjustments in the way needed to be successful in college ball, or they make the adjustments and become even better players able to adjust each level of competition they encounter. Only the latter truly succeed. They are the ones I think of as "coachable" at the college level and beyond.
To be honest, it is because so few players are "coachable" that the number of players who can succeed shrinks so significantly in college ball and beyond.
quote:For most, their skills will be challenged as never before. If they are not "coachable" as rz1 notes, they will fail! In college, the term coachable, to me at least, isn't defined by being a "good" kid or something other than that. It is defined by being able listen to a good college coach who makes adjustments or changes to the way you play the game. They do that because you are struggling at the college level, the coach knows the way you "used" to/currently play either won't succeed at the college level or the way you used to play is getting in the way of your being a better player. That player who is coachable will not only be able to listen and make the adjustments, he will be successful with them. The level of competition/scouting will then catch up, and they need to adjust again.
infielddad - loved your entire post
There is a corollary to all the good points made in this thread. The best players want to be coached imho. They are always looking for an edge and what better way to find it than picking a quality coach and seeing if he can get the most out of your talents. That was an important factor to my son and me in picking a program. What was the track record of the coaches in question. Were they winners? Did they develop their players? and so forth.
Sometimes that coachable HS kid hits the wall in college and that line of being coachable and being frustrated to the point of complacency are not separated by much. The HS stud who played every position, lead by example, walked with his head held high, for 3 years of HS, may now be 3 deep on the depth chart. The human spirit is not something that you cannot predict how it will react. We hope it's positive, but who knows. That is why I feel that you are constantly tested on that coachability intangible.
quote:posted by infielddad: When you get to college, you find there are some real fine, terrific former high school players that either will not listen, they listen, try to make the adjustments and can't, they make the adjustments but cannot be successful/execute the adjustments in the way needed to be successful in college ball, or they make the adjustments and become even better players able to adjust each level of competition they encounter. Only the latter truly succeed. They are the ones I think of as "coachable" at the college level and beyond.
Adjusting your game, life and focus to the college "situation" is the lowest common denominator among successful players. So many players atrit themselves before they even get started with off-field issues.
quote:posted by ClevelandDad: That was an important factor to my son and me in picking a program. What was the track record of the coaches in question. Were they winners? Did they develop their players? and so forth.
Big tipoff to a successful coach and program. If you see players undrafted in high school turning pro after college, other than the obviously "unsignables" (new word?), you could be looking at a program that just might allow, permit, promote, help, cojole or somehow otherwise extract a players very best on the field and off. You may not end up in the pros, but might reach your potential. You literally can't ask much more.
Excellent prior posts in this thread.