New coach vs. established coach

The coaches job is to put the players on the field that he believes gives his team the best chance to win that game. What year they are in has no bearing on it after this has been settled in his mind. For instance your a new coach coming in and taking over a program. The Sr SS is the best SS you have. Do you sit him and play the Soph because he is going to be there longer? Do you put the Soph pitcher on the mound over the Sr stud? Do you play the Fr CF over the Jr CF who is better? No.

Now lets turn it around. Your a coach who has been there for several years. You have a soph SS who is better than the Sr SS. Do you play the better player or play the Sr because he is a Sr. Do you throw the Soph pitcher who is better than the Sr? Do you play the Fr CF over the Jr CF who is not as good? Yes.

Your not going to build anything by rewarding players for longevity alone. Your not going to build anything by giving things to players they have not earned. You avoid all of this nonsense by simply allowing them to compete and then playing the players that give you the best opportunity to win.

By doing this your showing players that performance is what matters. The ability to play the game and help your team win is what counts. Not how old you are or how long you have been there. You don't throw players under the bus today with the hopes of building a program for tomorrow. And you don't reward players for simply being there the longest.

Others will chime in with their own experiences and thoughts. But from my experience the best players for the teams I have faced seem to always be on the field playing against us. Sometimes they are younger and sometimes they are older. But they are always the better players. Now if they would like to sit their better players and play the other ones that is fine with me. I just have not seen it yet.

I'm with Coach May - the best play no matter what grade level they are. I've really never seen a situation where a new coach comes in and plays the younger guys just because and vice versa. I think this is some generalization that really cannot be proven right or wrong but if a coach wants to win and keep a team together he will play the best players.

Besides at what point does the new coach who plays younger players become the established coach who plays the older guys? Everyone starts out new.

SO who do you guys play? The senior that has a track record and you can depend on him for certain things or the sophomore that you are not sure how he will do but has the potential to be better? Ir seems like first year coaches go for the sophomore with potential over the senior and coaches that have been in the program go for the player they know and can count on. The senior gets the spot.

Coach_May, I agree with what you said to be the usual circumstance in most situations. But, I have seen occasions where Sr players were missing mandatory weight lifting & conditioning / preseason practices without being excused ahead of time. Being that it was the New Coach's first year as Head Coach, after having been the longtime Asst. Coach to recently retired longtime "legend" Coach, certain players must of felt that they could get by with it. Well, they were wrong. Players were cut, or Sat out initially, while some players played up...the same players that never missed a mandatory workout or practice. Even if the Sr. Players were better. An example had to be made, and to make it clear that effort & participation sometimes would win out over ability OR seniority.

The Soph has time to prove what the Sr has already proven. If he proves he is a better option "gives me a better chance to win" he plays over the Sr. Potential is great. Actual game performance is what wins games. It or should always come down to performance and the ability to help you win today. I was a first year coach a long time ago. I evaluated the players ability to perform. Who was the best player? That is who played. I started 2 Fr my first year as a HC. Not because they were Fr but because they were better than the 2 Jr's. Both ended up All State. I also started 4 Jr's and 2 Sr's that year. Because they were the best players.

Shelby that is a totally different situation. If players are not doing what they are suppose to be doing Fr So Jr Sr then they dont have to worry about being in the line up or on the team. They simply have decided to do something else with their time.

Doughnutman from my experience coaches play the players they believe are the best players. Now if they can't see a real difference in what they bring to the table they may go with the younger guy because he has more time in the program to develop. Some might go with the older guy thinking his maturity or experience will be a factor. I have always just put them out there and let them battle it out. I could careless what grade they are in. The boxscore doesnt say Freshman went 3-4 or Sr went 3-4. I could careless I just want to make sure I got the best options on the field.

Coach May,
Coaches play who they think the best players are. BUt first year guys seem to like the younger guy. Maybe they are more willing to go with a player who has a higher ceiling and potential to help more in the next couple of years. I have seen a number of programs in AZ that will not play a sophomore or freshman. You have to wait your turn. And all of the coaches that do that are long term guys. I have never seen that from a first year coach.

I agree with what Coach May says but I'd like to add another scenario to the mix.

What about the Sr player that is not a starter? A Sr who occupies a place on the roster but sees rare playing time, if any. We had about 4 Seniors on our squad last year that combined had less than 10 AB's and probably fewer innings in the field.

My personal opinion is that the team would have been better served if the younger players were given the opportunity and exposure to the higher level for the benefit of the overall program. But I'm not a coach so I may be missing something here.

I must agree with the two experienced HS Coaches posting on this one.

Our experiences have been that no matter where the Coach may be in his experience or in his time-line with the school, he needs to win. He wins now and always by playing the best. We saw that both in HS & College. The new hired gun HS Coach came in with something to prove; he played the best. He cut non-contributing Seniors. Later, down the road with 7-8 years of great success, had his own children, perhaps mellowed some, he admits that now he thinks more about the kids. To THURMS comment; now he may keep a hard working Senior or two on the Team that aren't regulars but are "examples" of commitment and team work.

In College, established Coach, winning tradition likes "seasoned" experienced players. Tough for young position players to break in. Have seen him allow Senior players "to play themselves out" of the line-up that then would allow the younger player an opportunity to move in. But, when all is said and done, they play those that give them the best chance to win always!

It must be an AZ thing? Lol

Look from the first day I was a HC at the HS level I set many goals. But the very first goal I had was to make sure I put the team on the field that gave me the best chance to win. I owe that to my players. And every year after it was the same #1 goal. And sometimes that was tough to do. Sometimes there were some very hard decisions to make. DH for the slumping Sr catcher who has given you so much and continues to give you so much every day? Let that Soph who has not had many at bats go ahead and get the experience at the plate because he is going to have to hit next year? Will this hurt the Sr's catchers defense? Will it hurt the team chemistry? Even though the players are going to back me to my face what is it going to do to the dug out? Is it really the best thing for the team with all things considered and all things I can not even see yet?

There are times when a younger player just has to be in the line up. There are times when an older player simply gets beat out. I have always said the perfect scenario is when all your best options are your Jr's and Sr's who have been in your program, busted their butts and have become your best options. Your talented younger guys can now get spot duty, learn from the older guys, develop in the program and then move up to fill the voids created by graduation. But this is not always the case and from my experience rarely the case.

Playing anyone for the sake of anything outside of them being the best option to help you win that day is not fair to your players or your program. There are enough game during the season and situations during the season to get these other guys experience and opportunities. But never at the expense of giving them the best opportunity to win. JMO

How far are coaches (anyone) willing to take "I play the best players. Period."?

Not every HS has a gung ho program, full of single-sport, travel all star, year-round workout fanatics. Some are scraping for players. One local school doesn't play during spring break because most of the team goes to Cancun or The Bahamas, somewhere warm, with their families. What's the coach supposed to do? Cut everyone and forfeit the whole season?

So, regardless of class, do you play the kid who hits .225, keeps score on the summer team and never misses winter practice- the good soldier-, or play the kid who hits .450, but goes sailing all summer and rarely shows up to the gym, in January, 'flies in for games', so to speak?

Obviously, the .450 hitter gives the team a better chance to win. Is he worth bending the rules a little (if any rules are even broken by missing optional practices or workouts)? Is it truly all about 'the best team on the field'?

You play the best players period end of story.

to any body who disagrees answer the following If you owned a company wouldn't you want the most qualified to work for you so you could increase your profits? If not try to explain why not.

Even if they 'don't buy into the program', Will?

Interesting discussion.
I agree that the best players should always play, but Antzdad brings up a really good point. It may just have to be the best players that fit that particular season, not necessarily the most talented.
I try to keep in mind that HS sports are an extra curricular activity, and for some programs throughout the US, I am sure that winning the state championship is not the primary goal. That might be the same goal for college programs, as well as professional teams, not necessarily a championship, but just to be able to stay above .500 is the goal. One certainly can't do much about the HS program as that is where your son has to play, with 25-28 games, I wasn't concerned other than my player got in his time (which wasn't always because he was the mosre talented) but when it came to paying for a travel team, I expected that coach to use the players wisely for the purpose intended (to show off recruits as well as win). We all look at things from a different view.

However, I don't see that as the point that DM brought to discussion, rather he says he sees a trend in younger coaches playing younger players and older more seasoned coaches going with the upperclassman. I don't think that in the HS game, that their is necessarily one set of rules, it just may depend on that particular coach and what he is trying to achieve.


My point of view is from a parent's perspective, where I have seen the most talented players play as well as the more experienced (but not necessarily the more talented). I also have seen a different approach to the game and use of players among coaches throughout DK's career, ranging from the older coach who goes with more experienced players to the younger guy using the younger guys bcause he has the ability to develop them better or vice versa.
As Coach May suggests, I think there is a lot of different things that goes into building a winning team, youth, experience, talent level, coaching philosophy, and most of all dugout/clubhouse chemistry. If the coach is just doing what he does because he THINKS it will work, and it isn't, then maybe he doesn't belong coaching/managing at that particular level.

JMO.

If the "best players" do not buy into the program, they are not the "best players" from a team perspective and can actually be destructive to the team.

Antz Dad

Buying into the program?

quote:

Originally posted by floridafan:
If the "best players" do not buy into the program, they are not the "best players" from a team perspective and can actually be destructive to the team.

You are right, if a player doesn't buy in, he doesn't belong. You can't always find that in the HS game, mainly because of lack of players. But beyond that, sometimes that's the reason why many players have their scholarships cut or get released.

In mymind the new coach will play the best talent period----he wants his first year to be a winning year so as to prove why he deserved the position

Antz Dad, those players are not in the program if I am the coach. "Best" is relative to several criteria.

I'm an old coach. Coach May and others have been around a long time. (No offense Coach May) In doing so, we've seen it all. We've had the senior who has earned the post and is a known quantity. We've seen the talented frosh or soph who is pushing. We find ways for those players to get in and play. For example a second game of a DH. All players know that they are not guaranteed anything and that all positions are always open to the best player. In all my years coaching and in two very successful programs, we always played freshmen and sophomores. Doughnutman, I know you know about one of those programs which was one of the top programs in the U.S. Billy Joe used to help with them. Look at those rosters. You'll see significant contributions from freshmen and sophomores.

Take care! Good to see you still posting. I hope your son is doing well.

Maybe a new coach looks at the players with fresh eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Antz Dad

Buying into the program?

Yes, more about what players do, or don't do, off the field. Are you OK with letting the kid who hits 20 HRs bat fourth if he sleeps while the rest of the team is lifting at 6 am, or doesn't run out infield pops in practice? Do you look the other way when the kid who throws 90 doesn't show up for the Little League clinic? They are your best performers. Are they on your team? Do they start?

AntzDad that is pretty much the same scenario that Shelby brought up. If a player is not doing the things required to be part of the program they are not even in consideration because they won't be a part of the team. If a player is slacking off, not taking care of business in the classroom, on the field, off the field, etc etc then they have decided its simply not important enough to them. The best players that are in your program. There are plenty of talented kids in the parking lot or in the stands while you are practicing or playing games. But it doesn't matter because they are not on the team.

Just because you make the team does not mean you will continue to be a part of it. And just because your the most talented guy doesn't mean you are willing to do what it takes to be a member of the team. There are numerous guys with this same old story. I could have been, I would have been, I should have been. But they were not. There is a reason.

Funny AntzDad brought up the team who doesn't play over spring break because I went through a very similar situation my first year as head coach. I took over a program that was terrible and allowed the seniors to go wherever they wanted on spring break. The year before and my first at the school I was the asst and I saw the whole seniors go on spring break with my own eyes. The day I was named head coach I made it known this would no longer be tolerated. Early in the school year I had a meeting with all returning players and told them it wouldn't be tolerated so they wouldn't make plans.

One kid asked me if they had to sit out a few games for missing. I said nobody was going to sit if they missed but I did want their uniform before they left. Obviously next question was why am I kicking them off the team. Some people may see this as an difference in semantics but I think those who get it will understand my point. I told them I wasn't kicking them off the team because by choosing to go wherever they wanted for spring break they were quitting the team. I told them if they wanted to be better they had to make a commitment and build a program rather than have a team. I asked them if the other / better teams in our region allowed their players to miss spring break and the answer was no.

Ended up the seniors decided to not even come to tryouts because I asked them not to come out if they were deadset on going somewhere. I didn't want to waste preseason and two weeks of games on people who weren't going to finish the season. I guess to their credit they helped me out in that regard. I had one senior who didn't go and he was my 3B, my LF was a junior and the rest were sophomores while a freshman got some pitching time. Looking back it was even more special than it felt at the time. We won the district championship (hadn't been done in years) and made it to the finals of the region (never been done). The team who beat us in the finals of the region got us 3 - 1 but in the regular season they beat us twice by a combined 20 some runs. It was a tough regular season marked by hard losses and parent problems but we kept getting better and better (plus the principal telling the parents if they ran me off he was going to fold baseball because of them) allowed us to have a great season.

About three years after that my best player came up to me during football season wanting to know if he could go somewhere on spring break. Obviously I said no since the policy put in place hadn't been challenged and was working. He kept pestering me about this all during the fall and I finally told him he could go as long as he gave me his uniform. That shut him up and it was no longer a problem.

Few years later I had a senior that started as a junior but didn't get any better. Had a freshman who was really, really good. About a 1/3 way through the season I decided to go with the freshman. We ended up going on a nice little run and won the district and make it to the semis of the region. I really doubt if I had stayed with the senior we would have won the district.

What makes a winning program? Well if you come up with an answer to that question that could apply to everyone you would probably be a very rich person. There are some common ingrediants like commitment to team and playing the best but there are so many other factors that go into it that it's hard to come up with a solution. In fact what worked this year may not work next year although the vast majority of the team is the same. Ideally, you come in and create a program where the older guys are the best choices and replace thm with younger talent through graduation. But when that young kid comes along who's got it then you have to play him.

quote:

Are you OK with letting the kid who hits 20 HRs bat fourth if he sleeps while the rest of the team is lifting at 6 am, or doesn't run out infield pops in practice? Do you look the other way when the kid who throws 90 doesn't show up for the Little League clinic? They are your best performers. Are they on your team? Do they start?

If you have rules they are for everybody. so my answer is if you break a rule you pay the consequence. to answer your question in a real situation. Back when one of my players a senior did not run a pop up out in a sectional playoff game, He came off the field and I told him he was through for the day. It was a no brainer for me. I got no argument from him. We won the game so luckily for him his season did not end with that.

The new coach comes in without pre-conceived opinions on players. The old coach might be loyal to the senior who has been in the program for three years. The new coach, with a more open mind, might judge the players on the tryouts and scrimmages, then play the sophomore who showed better than the senior, not because he has potential.

I think new coaches want to win now as much as established coaches. Maybe more to show he was the right choice.

I think when you get to high school it is time that reality hit. Not everybody has the same talent.The everybody must play and everybody gets a trophy scenario is over. Or lets put it this way it should be.

quote:

Not every HS has a gung ho program, full of single-sport, travel all star, year-round workout fanatics. Some are scraping for players. One local school doesn't play during spring break because most of the team goes to Cancun or The Bahamas, somewhere warm, with their families. What's the coach supposed to do? Cut everyone and forfeit the whole season?

I don't know of any HS in our area that treat Varsity sports as an extra-curricular program TPM. I know in reality that is what they are but Coaching jobs are kept and or lost based upon program success. ANTZ; no programs here allow their athletes Spring Break! They are playing baseball or don't tryout (all of which is spelled out to all athletes BEFORE tryouts).

quote:

Originally posted by Prime9:

quote:

Not every HS has a gung ho program, full of single-sport, travel all star, year-round workout fanatics. Some are scraping for players. One local school doesn't play during spring break because most of the team goes to Cancun or The Bahamas, somewhere warm, with their families. What's the coach supposed to do? Cut everyone and forfeit the whole season?

I don't know of any HS in our area that treat Varsity sports as an extra-curricular program TPM. I know in reality that is what they are but Coaching jobs are kept and or lost based upon program success. ANTZ; no programs here allow their athletes Spring Break! They are playing baseball or don't tryout (all of which is spelled out to all athletes BEFORE tryouts).

Are sports a part of the GPA in your area and does everyone need to participate to graduate? Most likely not, so it's an extra curricular activity as not a requirememtn for graduation.

Are you telling me that all student athletes in HS in your area will go onto play their sport beyond HS?

Just wondering.

quote:

One local school doesn't play during spring break because most of the team goes to Cancun or The Bahamas, somewhere warm, with their families. What's the coach supposed to do? Cut everyone and forfeit the whole season?

We lived in one of these towns. The new coach had a players and parents meeting the first week in January. When a parent asked about this situation the coach's reply was, "Your son is free to go away on vacation. Just please remember to have him turn in his uniform before leaving for vacation." Nothing more was said.

There were a few tee'd off parents. They owned the previous coach. There was a new sheriff in town. A sheriff committed to turning around a loser program.

Our players are expected to be there for spring break. They usually get a day or two off at the beginning or end of the break. Two years ago, coach kicked 3 seniors off the team who missed part of the schedule for spring break. We were told in October and again before the season started exactly what the expectations were, so I didn't have a problem with it.

It was his 1st year as head coach. Maybe that had something to do with it. But coach before him expected the same thing. We are in a very competitive region, so it really is tough to take a whole week off in the middle of the season. You are just not as sharp when you come back.

Our local high school takes the varsity and jv teams to florida a every three years. that way everyone has a chance to once in their HS career...and many families go along....a lot of fun

When son was soph two seniors were griping about coming back early for practice and a tourney. Coach shouted at them if they didn't want to be there, they could leave. They did. They only sat 4 innings the next game.

I absolutely love knowing there was "old school" coaches left. Just wish son had had one in high school. He does in college. Let me tell you, it was rough in the beginning, but son sees things so differently now. .. It's good.

My son's coach was new to the program when my son was in 8th grade. The previous coach's record was seventeen losing seasons in twenty years. Worse the parents owned the coach.

The coach's first year he knew he was inheriting a bunch of spoiled prima donnas who didn't work hard. He laid out the new rules and gave them a chance. The new rules included players better show up game ready for the first day of tryouts. Two of the four winter workouts were at 5:45am so anyone playing a winter sport could attend.

He went with the older players talent over younger players with more potential. But he let them weed themselves out with their behavior over the next two years. He kept the best young players together on JV their freshman year. He let them build a winning attitude together. He also didn't want them overwhelmed getting smoked on varsity.

By the coach's third year three sophs and a freshman played key roles in helping the team contend for the conference title. When these kids were juniors with more juniors and sophs called up the team won it's first conference title in twenty years. The team had it's first back to back winning seasons in twenty years.

When my son was a soph there were three seniors on the team not getting playing time. They were told they could have a uniform for their efforts over the years. But they had been beaten out for a position.

I can't understand a player taking a vacation when a team he's on has games or practices. This goes back to 8 year old town all stars. It never crossed my mind to take a vacation while he was playing ball. To me it's understood...your on a team, you're committed to whatever that team's schedule is.

That this happens in high school really surprises me.

quote:

I absolutely love knowing there was "old school" coaches left.

The numbers are dwindling

The only communication we’ve received from our coach so far were the dates for spring break, 3/9 – 3/15. Guess this tells me something about the level of dedication of our coach. I don’t think he has been very successful.
One week of try-out’s starting 2/27, few days of practice the week of the 6th, off a week, then a couple more days of practice, then the first game on 3/21.
Oh well, we’re going someplace warm.

quote:

...your on a team, you're committed to whatever that team's schedule is.

Now that is old school

New coach versus established coach? If my son is a freshman or sophomore in high school, I'd lean towards the established coach. All things being equal (school size, league, tradition, etc...), I'd expect the coach to put the best players on the team regardless of their age/grade. With that said, a good coach knows the importance of maintaining/building a strong team with good chemistry. IMHO, 1 thru 14 on the HS roster is relatively easy to fill...it's 15 thru 18 that's difficult. Do you fill those spots with young underclassmen and give them the opportunity to compete in practice with the older established juniors/seniors, knowing that their playing time will be limited? OR...do you fill those spots with seniors that have put their time in the program and are happy to contribute any way possible to help the team, whether the role is a backup position player or the 8th pitcher in the rotation? It's a tough decision, something that HS coaches across the states have to deal with each and every year.

My son graduated from HS last year (2011). His school was opened in 2004, so it's still in its infancy and establishing its reputation. The current enrollment is around 3,600 students. The current Head Coach has been at the helm from the beginning, and has certainly noticed significant changes over the years. The school had only had one D-1 signing the first five years in existence. In 2010 three kids signed D-1 LOI's (one was drafted, and signed), and the fourth player went to a JC out of state and will most likely be playing in the Big 12 next year. In 2011, my son and two other teammates signed D-1 scholarships. This season, two players signed in the early signing period, and two others will likely be committing and signing soon. A sophomore was already offered a significant scholarship to a D-1 last week, and this doesn't include the other D-2, D-3, NAIA, and JC opportunities for players in the program.

I consider my son's high school coach a friend. But you know, he'd be the first to tell you that as a New Coach in a program trying to find its identity and form a reputation in the early years, he had to earn the trust of the college coaching community. Those college coaches weren't calling and inquiring about his players early on. As he's matured as a coach, and the program has grown and continues on an upswing, the coach/my friend is taking calls on a weekly (sometimes daily) basis with universities inquiring about his players. He is gaining the trust from some major coaches on the west coach regarding his talented players. So the question posed by the OP was New coach vs. established coach? As I stated at the beginning of my post, I lean towards the established coach. BTW...his HS team will have four sophomores on the eighteen man roster this season.