Coaches play to win

+1!  

Another +1 from me!!

I think it is mostly true.  Not 100%, but definitely in the 90+ percentile.  A lot less than most would like to believe.  Buying into the "It's Politics" garbage, just makes it easier for your son to fail.  Tell him to work harder than everyone else, hone his skills, be a good teammate, and if it is meant to be good things will happen.

An addendum to the Herm Edwards' postulate....

 

Smart coaches play to win the game.  

 

 

As always, JMO. 

That a coach plays to win, doesn't settle much.  Coaches, especially your average HS coach, are pretty short of being infallible.  I've seen coaches seriously misjudge the players on their teams for one reason or another.  Some coaches let  short-term results blind themselves  to the better long run bet.  A coach trying to win, may place his faith in certain players and give them lots of rope to hang themselves with, while putting other players on a much shorter leash.   Wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to what % of coaches get it wrong in trying to win.  But I bet a non-trivial number do.   HS Coaches are not infallible gods -- long way from it.  

I would say 90% of politics accusations are inaccurate. However, if it's obvious there's politics, don't use it as an excuse. Use it as motivation to get over the wall. The walls aren't there to keep you out. They're there to see how badly you want in.

 

Very true. The coaches are part time, and many of them only have HS / junior college level playing experiences. So although there may not be politics, there may be wrong judgement and wrong strategies.

While I agree that coaches often get it wrong and are not infallible, I disagree that the statement doesn't settle much.  As is the point of the OP (I think), if a player accepts that this is the primary objective of the coach and blocks out all the other BS, perceived or otherwise, they will put themselves in a much better position to take the necessary steps to earn a spot in that particular coach's lineup.

No coach is infallible.  Misjudging talent is far from being politics.  That coach's intent is still to play to win.  Also, the judging of talent is pure opinion.  Just because someone's opinion is different from the coach's, doesn't mean that the coach's judgement is wrong.  There could be other factors that an outsider doesn't see that are part of the coach's decision making process.

 

I have seen this as well.  Usually it is a matter of the trust that a coach has in certain players and a lack of trust he has in other players.  Sometimes this is justified and sometimes it is not.  Either way, it is not a sign that the coach is not playing to win or that politics are involved.  If a player is on the side of the coin where trust is not being shown, keep working and earn that trust from the coach.

 

I don't think ANY coach is infallible.  The issue in the thread is whether coaches play to win or if they play to politics.  I believe far and away that coaches play to win and politics do not enter the equation.  Whether someone agrees or disagrees with the decisions a coach makes is a different issue and I don't think it has anything to do with whether a coach is playing to win or not.

I believe HS coaches play to win of course; but I also believe there can be  questionable decisions made and biases shown that can be easily labeled as "politics."

Typical HS Coach Profile - Played the game professionally or in college and did not reach the Majors.  When playing days were over he finds his way back to his hometown or perhaps his wife's hometown and starts working.  Wants to stay in the game and ends up at the local School coaching.

 

He is competitive and wants to win.  He may even have a chip on his shoulder with something to prove.  None of this means he is sitting guys that can clearly help the team win games.

 

The grey area at a lot of places is not in the best 4 or 5 or the bottom 4 or 5 but the half dozen in the middle.  In other words the kids that will hit 7-8 or be the 3rd or 4th pitcher.

 

There will be some philosophical bents, experienced (Sr. vs So. kind of thing), size, speed or attitude factors.  But in the end most of these decisions typically leave a team in the same place.  How many light hitting outfielders are interchangeable?  Most of them are. 

 

If the team is on its way to 17-8 with the coaches lineup, your lineup wins 16 to 18 games too if that is the decision point.  Every once in a while a coach makes a bad decision on these kind of things and misses the diamond in the rough or the gamer that might turn that 17-8 to 21-4 or something.  I am of the opinion it does not happen often.

 

On the other hand if you are one of these players and you have an approach, mouth or attitude that rubs the coach the wrong way and he wins 17 games with or without you then you should never be surprised if he does it without you.

 

I have told my sons that you win 95% of time in life simply by showing up on time with a good attitude.  The other 5% is defeated with talent.  Whoever has it wins - at everything.

There are times when you don't play to win.

 

My kid's basketball coach would run his senior starters into the ground even when down by 20+ in the fourth, even when the team was out of running for the post season. IMHO that's a good time to get your underclassmen into the game and see what you've got for next year.

JV game, 34 kids on roster, beating a mediocre team with our talented top 10 kids.  Winning 13-1 bottom 4.  No way the other team can win from anyone's perspective.  Second and third round of subs going in, except for a starting outfielder brought into pitch, with one of 4 catchers (never caught in a game this year yet).  Pitcher throws hard flat inaccurate fastballs - that's it.  Bottom five, a few base hits later and some passed balls, score is now 13-4.  Time for inning 6.  Same pitcher and catcher, other subs are held.  Bottom 6 it's now 15-6.  We win in 7 - 15-6 (brought in a regular pitcher and catcher).  Coach goes ballistic on the team saying he will never sub again, loud enough for everyone.  Praises starting lineup and told all subs they lost, basically 5-1.  I think he wanted to go home early and forgot he should be developing and motivating players and it's a team game.  Wanting to win at all costs is not always a good thing.

I wondered whether this simple statement would elicit challenges -- and no surprise, it has.

 

Some don't, but bballman, luvbaseball and others apparently understand this HUGELY IMPORTANT POINT:

 

It doesn't matter a hill of beans whether politics exist!

 

It also doesn't matter whether a coach knows HOW to win.

 

What matters is what players and parents can control. 

 

(And btw, sluggerdad: Even in the big leagues, managers sometimes "Let short-term results blind themselves to the better long run bet.")

 

Who do we complain to then??

One thing I've never understood.  Why is it always the coaches fault?  Is it the coaches fault that player 'A' can't get the signs right?  Always shows up late to practice?  Never makes adjustments of any kind?  Doesn't hustle?  Gives his teachers fits in the classroom?  

 

Who is more likely to have a better, in depth, perspective of the player?  The person who sees them on game day.  OR the people who see them EVERY DAY during Fall Ball, offseason workouts (or not), and everyday during the spring?  ie. 20 hours a week, nine months per year?

 

Just a thought, next time "politics" is involved.

 

"One thing I've never understood.  Why is it always the coaches fault?"

 

At the end of the day, it rarely matters does it?

 

Coaches, just like bosses, have power. 

 

We have choices. Stay or leave. 

 

Sometimes leaving is best, yes. But more often than not -- in sports -- it's best to accept those things we cannot change ... and get after it!!

 

 

...or maybe he was using one of several options to try to motivate the subs to be more prepared and take advantage of the opportunities when they get them.

 

Throwing JV into the conversation certainly changes this discussion.  I suggest we don't muddy up the waters.  The JV scenario has it's own unique set of circumstances and that perspective has been discussed many times here.

If you lost every game at jv level but developed players would it really matter?

Talk radio.