I recently had a chance to listen to some college coaches talk about the experience of recruiting and coaching, and how it is changing.
One coach made a very interesting comment that seemed to get support.
If I understood it correctly, his view is that baseball is a game of failure.
However, in little league, high school, travel ball,and the entire experience before college, for too many players these days, either the player's ability, his parents involvement or some combination, prevented that player from the experience of what it means to "fail" in baseball, or on the field.
Sure they had an 0-4, but they never had an 0-20.
Sure they played good competition, but they never had to compete within their own team for playing time.
Sure they had times when they didn't play well, but they were still better than the player on the bench, so they didn't get to see what the game is like from the bench, while someone else played.
When they get to college, players encounter all of these and more. For the first time, baseball as a game of failure surrounds them.
What surprised me was the description of the extent to which and how many parents try to intervene in college these days to help their son avoid these "failures" and how such intervention hurts the player in many ways.
The conclusion seemed to be that the player who was talented and was not "protected" from failure before college did much better in adapting in college and learning about the game from the standpoint of failure. Players who had experienced failure and battled through it, got a plus as a potential recruit.
Those who had been protected from failure, especially by their parents, were much less likely to succeed in college baseball when they confronted failure. Those who had parents intercede in college to try and shield the player from failure were the least likely to have an experience which would be considered successful for the team/coach/player and family.
Any thoughts?
Original Post