Leadership in college baseball..what is it??

when you win you have leadership? When you lose you don not? I think the leadership thing is a little exxagerated at times. Talent or lack of it is the determining factor in the long run. What do they say winning is the best deoderant. When things are going bad a couple of wins cleans the air.

more important than leadership is team chemistry. but they both go hand in hand, everyone must know what there roll on the team is. also i do believe a team should have a few real leaders that can help bring the best out of all of there teammates.

a good coach knows how to talk a player to get them to respond well on the field, a good leader does the same.

I think there is more than semantics involved here. To me, leadership and winning are one and the same.

I used to think that the team with the most all-stars were the winners. That is almost never the case however. Why is that?

I believe a winning team beats the team of all-stars because the winning team has players who are more accountable to the team rather than themselves. The only stat the leader cares about is whether or not his team won.

In my mind, I expect the leader to take the blame when the team loses. Similarly, the team gets all the credit when they win. It is not much more complicated than that imo. The leader will do everything in his power to ensure his team wins. I have always felt the true leaders were willing to do more of the team's dirty work even though it may not be the most glamorous thing to do.

Having been close to a college program for the past couple of years, I think the importance of leadership is vastly underrated.

Leaders aren't always the best players, but they're usually very good players. A leader is the guy who commands respect. He gains respect sometimes by exuding confidence on the field and succeeding in key spots...wanting to be at bat with the game on the line...wanting to be on the bump when the situation is critical.

But that same guy becomes the leader when he follows that up in the dugout or the clubhouse. He's not arrogant, but he isn't afraid to call someone out for not hustling or to pick the guy up who had a tough day. He puts his own frustrations aside when he needs too. Team is #1. He rallies the team WITH the coaches and sometimes a little AGAINST the coaches (the old "f-them, we'll win this one for ourselves" speech/attitude).

Most people are willing, even wanting to be led. Leaders know this and are not afraid to make a mistake. We all see it at work...of course its important on a baseball team too. I can almost guarantee you that every CWS team had a real "leader"...someone everyone would agree was their leader (maybe 2 or 3 guys)...and that guy made those teams tick when the season was on the line.

On son's team they vote for their captains and they take leadership very seriously. They are taught that for a team to succeed there must be successful leadership from within the team.
The first year son came to school the co captains were a medical redshirted pitcher and a player who put in very little playing time. So much for the leaders being the best players on the team. The team had a successful year.

Last year the team voted for 4 co-captains. They had an even more successful year.
I don't think just talent got them to that special place, but good team chemistry that was developed through effective leadership.

Successful teams in every sport, on every level have effective leadership.

I agree with JBB, the importance of leadership is vastly underrated.

well i can agree with voting for a team captain for leading streches and such, but elected captains arent always the best leaders. in high school we had elected co-captains and not all of them were real leaders.

for other sports elected captains work better. example i was the captian on my high school swim team junoir and senoir year. i was the best swimmer i also led practice, gave speeches, etc.

a team sport like baseball is different, doesnt work so easy.

While it is far from the rule, I have seen some cases where a team has a leader on the field and a different leader in the clubhouse. They are usually both good players, but the "field general" is usually a little more reserved, but he will give 100% on every single play and thrives on the pressure of big games and big situations. The clubhouse leader is more of the type that is liked (and respected) by everyone. he helps to build the team unity and chemistry that is crucial to winning baseball.

The clubhouse leader makes them a stronger team, but the on-field leader is the one that they would do anything for on the field. His play seems to be very contagious.

I guess if you can find one person that fits both molds, you got it made

Good topic infielddad. Ah the intangibles --- gotta love ‘em. Leadership, chemistry, and winning all blended together in to a well oiled machine. We credit the players but I think in reality the players that are team leaders are ALLOWED to be leaders because of good coaching. The coach, while he may not develop a team leader, will either encourage of discourage leadership from amongst the players by his method of coaching. A player has to be allowed to be assertive on the field and in the dugout in order to be a team leader but not so assertive that he becomes aloof and separates himself from his teammates. A coach can stifle that assertiveness or he can allow it to develop. The way a player "feels" is very important in how he performs. A player cannot walk on egg shells and play to his ability. He has to be encouraged to go all out ---- and understood when he make mistakes too. I have no idea how to make it happen but I can see it and feel it in a winning team when it does happen. Not only does the team leader feel good when his teammate excels he also feels his pain when he fails (you don't TEACH that). The team leader is a special player. While the teams leaders’ stats may not draw attention, those leaders are a vital part of the winning team. In my opinion stud player don’t normally make good team leaders. The stud player is automatically on a pedestal because of his talent and his encouragement can appear as if he’s “talking down” to his teammates.
Fungo

quote:

Originally posted by Fungo:
The team leader is a special player. While the teams leaders’ stats may not draw attention, those leaders are a vital part of the winning team.
Fungo

This is a great topic and so many of you are right in what you say. A quality team leader (or leaders) from among the players can make a season a success. It makes coaching so much more enjoyable than it would be without quality leaders, and a quality leader in many ways helps create leaders from (usually) younger players.

I believe that a good leader is a natural leader. I have seen guys who were chosen to be captains then change because of the title. The title of captain doesn't make one a leader. The player is either a leader or not, can be vocal or not, but he must be genuine.

Great topic.

quote:

We credit the players but I think in reality the players that are team leaders are ALLOWED to be leaders because of good coaching. The coach, while he may not develop a team leader, will either encourage of discourage leadership from amongst the players by his method of coaching. A player has to be allowed to be assertive on the field and in the dugout in order to be a team leader but not so assertive that he becomes aloof and separates himself from his teammates. A coach can stifle that assertiveness or he can allow it to develop. The way a player "feels" is very important in how he performs.

Fungo, as usual, a very insightful post. And, the coach's role in influencing and developing leadership is something I had not given much thought too. I just always thought "leadership" was a naturally occurring phenomenon that you either have, or you don't have. However, after reading your words it got me to thinking about our experiences on many different baseball teams and I have to agree 100% with your sentiments. I have seen some teams struggle with leadership roles...who is the "natural" leader vs. who the coach wants to be the leader. Sometimes it resulted in NO clear leader on the team because they cancelled each other out. I never really understood what exactly was going on in these situations, until reading your post which made a lightbulb go on in my head! And THAT doesn't happen every day!

.
So true Fungo...

And nice follow up's by Grateful and Luvbb...

Excellent food for thought...

That is why great coaching is an art instead of a science...It is one thing to recognise "genuine" team leaders...it is quite another to know how to "grow" them and share power with them without feeling threatened.

44
.

Fungo,
Wow, you have great insight!

I agree with you, the coach and his coaching method have a lot to do with those that take on leadership roles.

Sometimes we wonder why someone makes a team and why another doesn't. Good college recruiters look for individuals that bring all types of different things to the team. While trying ot find the best talent (they all don't have to be studs) that is right for his program, he also looks for personalities that gel together.
One of the qualities they look for are for certain individuals that may become leaders for the team, as this is a vital part of their program and philisophy.

Those that don't agree, can argue, but the argument is not with me, but from one college recruiter that I know.

quote:

Good college recruiters look for individuals that bring all types of different things to the team. While trying ot find the best talent (they all don't have to be studs) that is right for his program, he also looks for personalities that gel together.
One of the qualities they look for are for certain individuals that may become leaders for the team, as this is a vital part of their program and philisophy.

Exactly TPM! I think we, as parents, often focus on our kids skills. There are many things that coaches look for depending on their style, likes, needs, etc. Many factors go into individual recruiting. Good points!

...and that part of recruiting can only be seen after the fact.

But, it adds so much to the understanding of recruiting.

***


TIGER PAW MOM wrote:

"Those that don't agree, can argue, but the argument is not with me, but from one college recruiter that I know."


Can't honestly say I have ever met a "college recruiter".... at least not one that wasn't a college coach. Are you referring to "one in the same"???


cadDAD


################################################


An elderly gentleman had serious hearing problems for a number of years. He went to the doctor and the doctor was able to have him fitted for a set of hearing aids that allowed the gentleman to hear 100%. The elderly gentleman went back in a month to the doctor and the doctor said, "Your hearing is perfect. Your family must be really pleased that you can hear again."

The gentleman replied, "Oh, I haven't told my family yet.
I just sit around and listen to the conversations.
I've changed my will three times!"

Yes, sorry, I meant recruiting coach.

The topic for discussion is LEADERSHIP. That intangible quality that most people think they have and very few actually have it. The US Army spent a great deal of time with me and my fellow ROTC grads during my "training" during the Vietnam war days trying to pin down that elusive quality for their future officers and leaders. I am not sure they ever did but I would be curious to know how those lectures and military games to "discover" the great leaders have changed. I would bet not very much.

Fungo, IMHO you are dead on again. What a coach does or does not do affects a great deal the natural evolution [intelligent design, i.e the coach appointing the captain(s) never works here, even if you think it does] of effective leaders on a team. Permit me to provide a personal example.

This year my son's high school football team set school records in games won, won the school's first ever conference championship in football and went to the state plaoffs for the first time in the school's history. At the annual banquet last night all the coaches could talk about was the senior "leadership" and how that "leadership" was the key to success and made all the difference. The coaches admitted that this years team was not as talented athletically as some teams in the past that had not achieved this success. The team captains were given all the credit for "leading" the team to this historic season. Who was the team captain? My son. Along with the other eight seniors.

I believe this is how it came about. At the beginning of practice the coaches had set aside a day to "elect captains" as had been the custom for years. The seniors got together and went to the coaches and said, "let all the seniors be captains." Fortunately for the season [imho] the head coach agreed. Therefore [and I use that logical imperative deliberately] there was no backstabbing, no why did they not vote for me issues, etc. IMHO it set the stage for the unselfish way that everyone blocked for everyone else no matter who was running with the football. Bottom line, it allowed for the development of a true team oreinted set of goals that superceded any and all individual goals. As the season unfolded, it was a beautiful thing to watch.

Do most college recruiting coaches seek out leaders? Not as I can tell. If all this search for leadership consists of is to ask the High School coach or the summer coach "is player X a good leader", what do you expect him to say? What is his qualification for determining what leadership is? He may think the best player on the team who yells at everyone that is not as good as he is is a leader. Or that the excellent player that never says anything to anybody and stays in his shell is the "leader by example" that we hear so much about on ESPN. Try an experiment with yourself. Write down the Major Leagu baseball teams and who the "leaders" are. Pick one per team. And Derek Jetter does not count because everyone knows that he is THE GUIDEPOST FOR LEADERSHIP.

Good luck.

TW344

If I read it right I thought TW344 also saw that too many good leaders are not given that opportunity. At my sons school there is a neat way that the captains are distributed. The coaches choose a mix from different defensive areas. There are a combination of pitchers, infielders, outfielders, and a catcher. With the rules concerning off season coaching there needs to be a coaches voice in the off-season workouts. While I like the thought of players deciding who the captains are, I feel a coaches choice it is a great way for a coach to be virtually present at the player run workouts. I feel there is more consistancy and drive to reach the goals of the coach through the leadership of the coach picked captains.

rz,
Although at son's school they vote, no poll is actually seen.
Last year the four captains consisted of one from catchers, pitchers, infielders and outfielders and son said it worked very well.
One interesting excercise the coach does. Before they head off for holiday vacation, they are given questionaires. The questionaires ask questions regarding team and playing time. Who do you think works the hardest, who do you think deserves to be on the 25 man squad, do you think you should be a starter, why, etc. along with voting for team captains. I am sure that coach takes all of this info and digests it. But what I think is interesting, is that son appreciates that he might have a say about himself and his team mates.
Even if the coach does pick captains on his own after reading everything, his management style works to build team chemistry.

Being a LEADER does not mean you are a Captain

Excellent points everyone. Leadership certainly can be more complicated to determine/define as TW344 suggests. As I have read this thread, a thought that has occurred to me is the idea that a really successful team often becomes a team of leaders. It may start with the coach who then develops a small subset of guys to be leaders initially but when all cylinders are functioning properly on a championship team, you often have most of the guys contributing toward the group goals in lieu of individual goals. When you get everyone collectively looking out for the group, magical things can happen. The power of one cohesive unit dedicated to one goal usually trumps the individual star power that another team may provide.

The cool thing about achieving team goals is that individual goals often take care of themselves and flow from the successful achievment of the team's goals. For example, the more successful the team, it often follows that there will be more exposure for the individual which facilitates their own progression in the game due to the effectiveness of the underlying team.

+++


ClevelandDad,

Sounds to me like you have taught at the Academy... all good stuff.

Carry on.


cadDAD


+

quote:

One interesting excercise the coach does. Before they head off for holiday vacation, they are given questionaires. The questionaires ask questions regarding team and playing time.

I guess Jack got that from Robichaux. Father knows best at home,but the kids know best at the field. Good coaches know that.

.
CD,

Thank You!...Simply a great post...Said everything I have been wanting to say since this post started and more!

44
.

quote:

For example, the more successful the team, it often follows that there will be more exposure for the individual which facilitates their own progression in the game due to the effectiveness of the underlying team.

Nice post CD. You also might be able to turn that statement around. The more individual success that is achieved, the more precieved team goals that are attained. I am a "team" advocate, but I firmly believe that reaching team goals are directly propotionate to the success of the a few individuals. It's the chicken or the egg mentality. Was the team responsible for the players success, or, was the player responsible for the teams success. I think this plays out in the college game. You see many highly drafted players that come from teams that great team success but there wasn't a chance they would have been successful without that player.

When asked every team player is going to say "This was a complete team effort", "We reached all of our team goals" and so on. When in reality it was an individuals effort that attributed to the teams success.

rz1

quote:

When in reality it was an individuals effort that attributed to the teams success.

That's what good leader's do.
They help the team to achieve there goal's.

.
rz1...

While I do agree that statistical superstars can indeed heavily influence a team’s success...

While I do agree that lack of talent is a major limiting factor to success of team in college ball…

And while I do think that it is true that that individual staistical success can drive a team forward, and encourage everyone to buy in, and in fact an create some team chemistry...that leads to more individual success in domino fashion…

IMO, that holds a great deal more true in a sport like basketball where a statistical superstar is on the floor and can essentially dominate EVERY play. Baseball is the only sport where the rules of the game can "Freeze" out a star statistical superstar. As a result someone else must pick up the slack and temporarily become that statistical, situational, player. (Eckstein)

In basketball or football it is most always the superstar that is the MVP, because he CAN. He is always there on the field in the middle of the important situations. In baseball it is as often one of the supporting cast that takes this role, as the superstar might have been in right field, in the bullpen, not due up until the next inning, been out of the rotation or been walked.

This does not apply as much to high school where superstar players routinely pitch and hit. But as players reach college and specialization begins I think the team aspect becomes increasingly emphasized. Sadly, in pro baseball it is often as much about selling tickets, my stats for my next contract negotiation, than any team considerations.

Know of a DI team in a weak conference that had 9 guys drafted last June (double the second team and more than the rest of the conference combined)..but finished with a very poor overall record, third in their league and went out very early in the season ending championships. All with a very well respected coach.

IMO it is this emphasis on “Team” that makes the college game so unique, so pure and so fun. And while I believe that while all schools would like statistical superstars and actively recruit them, and while lack of talent is a major limiting factor to success of team in college ball...IMO, It is team chemistry that primarily drives college ball, makes it such a unique and great game.

44
.

44, couldn't agree more! A friend and I have had this discussion many times and came to the conclusion the catcher is the closest in baseball to the "man". What do you think? A look at recent playoff teams might show a pattern.

Some rambling thoughts on a Saturday morning... Thanks everyone for previous kind comments...

rz1 - of course you can turn the analysis around and consider the chicken or the egg if you will. Which team had the most "stars" on their team in college baseball last year? Was it the team with the most drafted? I'll bet it was not Oregon State (OSU). Of course they did in fact have very talented players. IMO, they possibly may have had more leadership than the other teams last year. North Carolina (NC) came close to proving your theory but they also had great leadership. Why was Jonah Nickerson, an 8th rounder, able to beat the blinding star power offered by North Carolina's Bard and Miller? If it was just about who has the best players, North Carolina maybe should have won.

Why was George Mason able to go that deep in the basketball playoffs last year? Did they even have any NBA players drafted last year? I guess my point in this thread has been trying to determine the difference between winning and losing. The team with the most talented players is often not the team that wins. The Oakland A's of the early 70's seems like a model of a team of stars. Yet that team had one binding factor, a collective hatred of Charles O'Finley. Why don't the Yankees win the WS every year? Doesn't their payroll suggest they have paid for the most good players? Rhetorical questions I know....
I thought the Cardinals had the it factor going this year. The Mets were close as well.

44,
You're preachin to the choir as I agree with everything you say. My only point is that a team that has some very talented players is going to beat a team with great chemestry, but average players, 80% of the time. A perfect example is the "elite" college teams playing against the mid-majors. If you put them side by side in most cases I would take that mid-major as the team with the better heart and chemestry because they have to work harder for it. While the "big-boys " main concern is looking over their shoulder, wallowing in their hype, and in many cases looking down on those below. You might call that attitude snobish, but it is there. That was my only point in that talent will win over chemestry.

quote:

was my only point in that talent will win over chemestry.

We are starting to argue semantics here. A talented "team" beats a team of talented players almost every time imho. The mid-major analogy is a good one. Often times, when the mid-major's stud pitcher is matched up with the big-boys stud pitcher, the outcome can go either way. In games two and three of a series against the big-boys, that is when the talent differential is so overwhelming that the outcome has but one way to go. You match similarly talented teams, and the team with the most leadership generally wins imho. The Cardinals had no business winning the World Series last year. If you don't believe me, ask BeentherIL and soxnole.

Good post OB!

So many factors go into making a college baseball team successful, I buy more into the team chemistry and team goals rather than individual superstars that move teams ahead. While talent is a huge factor, I often see the least likely player become a hero. The player that has sat through a whole series and brings in the winning run, the pitcher that sat all season winning the championsip game. I also see teams with much talent not able to get it together. Often this comes with inexperience, that is why leadership, IMO in important. It's also about stepping up and not always relying on your best player to perform his best in every game. Sometimes losing a key player factors into poor team performance, but that usually means that team was built around depending on that player.
Leadership, comes into play, from those that know how to bring a team together to work out issues and sometimes it is better coming from the players themselves than the coaches.

I remember meeting Mitch Canham (Oregon State) on a bus in Omaha. His comments to us were, that they had come together so successfully as a team, they were not given respect they deserved and that with their experience, desire to prove they could be champions it was accomplished. I knew right away that this player, though not the most talented catcher in Omaha, was a leader and would bring his team a championship. After listening to son talk about him (he was son's catcher this past summer), I was right. It's not hard to pick out those that know how to lead. he was drafted 41 round and elected to return to college. Oregon had 9 players drafted, 4 first 5 rounds. While obviously a talented team, they did not have the benefit of two first round pitchers. I think that, team leadership and chemistry was the key factor. JMO.

The other factor, don't forget, coaching decisions. Sometimes his decisions can change the course of outcomes, good and bad.

CD,
Funny I did not see your post!

rz,
I am not understanding of your comments that the larger teams look down at mid D1 teams. In the game of baseball, you can be beaten anytime. How can you make a statement these teams do not work as hard as others? Upper tier programs respect other teams, and I have seen many struggle through games and lose on many occassions.
That might be perceptions that many teams take on about the larger programs, but those kids are not taught to be above all, they are players like everyone else.

O r a l Roberts against Clemson super regionals. We struggled against them, those guys played with heart like I have never seen on a team. As all year, we had to come from behind. Their coach made a few admitted mistakes, that meant a difference in game outcome, along with home field advantage. They could have very easily been the winners.

If talent wins over team chemistry, then the yankees, would be world champs!

TPM - good post. I think we are on the same page and Oregon State is a fine example of the best "team" winning not the team with the most talented players. Obviously, Oregon State has some of the very best players as well.

Here is even a more stark example. Right now on HBO, they are recounting the 1980 US Hockey team win over the Soviet national team. The US team were all college players. The Soviets were a seasoned professional team and considered the best in the world because they had simply decimated the NHL for example. How did that rag tag group of kids beat the Soviets - that's right - teamwork that was fostered by leadership that started at the top with the coach.

One final point, my points on leadership are that it seperates one team from another. We'll never be able to find a high school team that has such overwhelming chemistry that it would be able to go out and beat some super college or pro team. It is one of those intangibles that a winning team simply must have. That is why coaches try so hard to develop it.

quote:

I remember meeting Mitch Canham (Oregon State) on a bus in Omaha. His comments to us were, that they had come together so successfully as a team, they were not given respect they deserved and that with their experience, desire to prove they could be champions it was accomplished.

TPM, Isn't that what I said about respect, was he also mistaken? He felt they were not repected. My point was not the CWS but the college season as a whole.

quote:

How can you make a statement these teams do not work as hard as others?

I said they had to work harder to get a win against a better team.

quote:

That might be perceptions that many teams take on about the larger programs, but those kids are not taught to be above all, they are players like everyone else.

So you are saying that Clemson has as much respect for a mid-major as they would have for let's say, any ACC team? No one is taught to disrepect, it is almost human instinct to look down on those not as talented. That is how upsets happen, teams are taken lightly which can also be looked as not respected.

quote:

If talent wins over team chemistry, then the yankees, would be world champs!

you're kind of splitting hairs because there is not that much difference in talent. Besides I feel the NY may have the highest payroll but not the best team.

Our team has struggled very often last year (and year before) against smaller D1 programs. And speaking for my own, mine is taught respect , if he showed that he or team mates were better than a smaller team, he'd have his you know what kicked in. Furman, Western Carolina, Winthrop, Mercer, all smaller program we lost to last year. These are teams they play on a regular basis, and lose!
You can see it on the other ACC teams that play mid D1's, they too struggle.
Slower pitching usually doesn't help. They fear that. And these smaller teams that come to play and win, boy do they leave with well deserved smiles on their faces! It kind of teaches larger programs humility.


Now if you want to bring up South Carolina, or some of the other ACC rivals, with no respect, your talking a different animal.

quote:

Our team has struggled very often last year (and year before) against smaller D1 programs

Why did they struggle? I don't think it was because of slower pitching because if that was the case everyone would throw slower pitchers against them. It was because they took them for granted, and did not show due respect as they would have given a SC type team.

I'm sure your kid has been taught respect, but an individuals respect towards another individual is different than a team repecting another team. The difference in this whole conversation is that the Clemsons of the world are not on the other other end of that "respect" scale so they've never experienced that feeling of being looked down at. Trust me when I say it does exist. From a team standpoint it results in the little guy going 110% in order to gain that respect, that effort is what upsets are made of. That is my point about mid-majors showing more heart and working harder.

quote:

Now if you want to bring up South Carolina, or some of the other ACC rivals, with no respect, your talking a different animal.

Does this mean I kind of respect you, versus, I really respect you. That is my point when I mention the respect towards another team by the big boys.

.

I guess...

...the outside borders of "team" are limited by talent...

...the outside borders of talent are limited by "team"..

..."Team" defines Leadership

...and leadership deines "team"

When it all converges you have success in a truly magical manner.

44

rz,
Not sure if you know this, but a gamecock and a Tiger can't stand being in the same room with each other.

I am not saying that's right or wrong, but there is considerable disdain for one another. That is what I meant. I have seen more rivalries exist between the larger programs and never seen them treat smaller programs like they were cupcakes or disrespectful.

Clemson is like any other program, sometimes they forget to show up for a game, but I don't think in any way it is interpretated as disrespect for the guys that are supposed to lose.

Maybe some teams do look down on the smaller teams, I have never seen or heard any comments regarding lack of respect for them from my son, any players, any parents or any coaches.