Playing Ability directly related to Coaching Ability?

Good topic...

I do think there are lots of great natural athletes who would never be good coaches. I believe coaching is part natural ability and instincts (for coaching) and part a desire to know as much as possible.

The one thing that I enjoyed the most in my baseball life next to playing was coaching thirdbase. I also enjoy watching good thirdbase coaches. That's as close as you get to playing the game or having an impact on the game.

quote:

Playing Ability directly related to Coaching Ability?

Let's reverse this.

Coaching Ability directly related to Playing Ability?

Playing well and coaching well require two distinctly different skill sets. Being good at one is not an indicator that you'd be good at the other. As you scan the horizon of MLB managers, not many of them jump out as having been great players.

Certainly there will be exceptions ... Kirk Gibson comes to mind (although perhaps he's not been managing long enough to make that call) ... but in general, I'd be in the camp that says that the correlation is pretty minimal.

Same way in education -- great teachers don't necessarily make great administrators.

Just my 2-cents.

Agreed. But I would call it a "NEVERENDING desire to know as much as possible..." Some guys get to the point that they think they know it all. The great ones never stop questioning and learning.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
.....I believe coaching is part natural ability and instincts (for coaching) and part a desire to know as much as possible...

quote:

Originally posted by SultanofSwat:

quote:

Playing Ability directly related to Coaching Ability?

Let's reverse this.

Coaching Ability directly related to Playing Ability?

Good catch. Can I change the title of the thread? That makes more sense of what I was trying to get across.

Okay I definitely understand the desire to keep learning as a coach. Keeping an open mind, and even if it's just picking up a tidbit from this person (who you might not agree with otherwise) I definitely get that, as I've done it myself. I find I may agree with one thing a coach or person may teach, but disagree with their meaning or intent. Don't know if that made sense.

But what about the other qualities that most people seem to agree make a good coach?

I know that many people equate someone's own experience, for example their playing experience, with what they can offer as a coach.

For example all these kids who are playing in the minors, and academies using their name (Professional players) to draw in paying customers.

It's pretty common I would think that many people would think because a guy played as a professional, that their instruction would be solid.

This line of thinking has made me think of the coaches who had a great impact on me...as a player and as a person, and I can't really remember any of them being exceptional players...or even using that as a "tool" as it were.

It depends, IMO. I was discussing this with a friend of mine who coaches volleyball. My daughter dropped softball for volleyball and we were discussing the finer points while watching a HS game. She made some very valid points about the mistakes the HS girls were making because their coach did not actually play volleyball.

I think simply having played the game and being a true student of the game is important in developing as a coach. Knowing "how and why" and being able to communicate it to the players is very important.

I agree with just about everything that has already been written in this thread. IMO, the best coaches are teachers first, and the only relevance their playing careers may have had to that role is that it was perhaps the primary way they were exposed to the subject matter about which they teach.

But I will say this: there is something about the cerebral nature of baseball, a relatively slower-moving game, that makes former baseball players more adept at coaching than Joe Average Former Xball Player. And especially catchers, who are the only player on the field who can see (and to some extent, set) the entire defense, work with pitchers, call games, etc.

All coaches are teachers first, but I think former baseball players are better suited to making that transition than former players of other sports. AND, count me among those who think that the player who struggled to succeed oftentimes makes a better coach than one to whom all things came easily.

I'd have to agree. I'm not sure it is possible to be a "great" coach unless you have played the game.

It is possible to be a "great" player and be a terrible coach. It's also possible to be a great player and a great coach. It's possible to be an average player and a great coach. It's possible to be an average player and terrible coach.

I guess you could ay... Anything is possible!

It just takes a different type of talent and desire to be one of the best coaches than it does to be one of the best players.

Great coaches know what players need to do. Not all great players understand what it takes. Also I really believe every great coach was a team first player when they played.

I think it's fairly easy to pick out the players who could end up being excellent coaches. Also easy to pick out those who will be the bad coaches.

Our best offensive player in college (all american) ended up being a head college coach. One game we were 2 runs down late in the game with the wind blowing in hard (not that the wind mattered). He was the leadoff hitter that inning and swung at a 3-0 count. BTW, 3-0 on our team it took the green light to swing. I knew right then and there he would be a bad coach. I really let him have it in the dugout. Another player on that team came up and said, Coach, we will talk to him about that and it won't ever happen again. I knew right then and there that this kid was going to be an outstanding coach. The first player is now a police officer. The second player is the head coach at a national power Juco and won the Juco National championship a couple years ago.

One other quick one...

There was a reserve player who would always follow me around in the dugout. Every time I would turn around there he was. He would also ask questions constantly. I kind of thought this was some form of brown nosing and it bothered me. One day I asked him... Chris, why the heck are you always following me around. His answer... Coach, I plan on being a coach someday and I'm just trying to learn everything I possibly can about this game. That sure shut me up!

This guy later became an assistant coach at Baylor and a couple other DI programs. He will probably get a head job before much longer.

I think most coaches know which of their players are most likely to become good coaches.

I think you have to play the game to some extent in order to an effective coach. It's one thing to quote what others have said that you get from clinics and speakers versus saying something along the lines of "when I played I used to do this....".

Also, if a coach played at a higher level is creates an instant credibility that someone who hasn't played doesn't have. You still have to get the job done to keep that credibility but it's still there.

Great input, The only thing I have to add is that I feel that not only do you need to have played the game to be a great coach. It ,also, depends on what level you played at as to what level you can coach at (I am sure there are exceptions as in anything. For instance, I think a HS player could someday be good HS coach, he wen thru the ropes, learned fundementals and drills up to that point, but have a hard time being a college coach unless he found to be around a college program without playing. Same from college to pros. There just is such different sets of circumstances in each level

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:

"Also, if a coach played at a higher level is creates an instant credibility that someone who hasn't played doesn't have. You still have to get the job done to keep that credibility but it's still there."

That's a great point, Coach, and one I know to be true in personal experience.

I didn't really mean to say that a playing career has no relevance (though it comes off that way) so much as it has little or no relevance to whether they are a good TEACHER, except as the means by which they learned the subject they are teaching. Even that is probably overstatement, though.

There are coaches who didn't play - at least at or near the level they coach at - who develop the credibility that comes more or less automatically with a successful prior playing career. I'm thinking Earl Weaver. But even then, that was certainly a struggle for him - think of Jim Palmer, famously saying "the only thing Earl knows about a curveball is he couldn't hit it."

Man, I must suck at getting my point across.

Me personally, I would assume, that to be a good coach you would have to have some experience playing the game.

I guess what I was asking is if ability, as a player, directly correlates to coaching ability?

Like that interview with Mickey Mantle in the Ken Burns baseball documentary. Mantle mentions meeting Ted Williams at an All Star game ( I think it was the All Star game) and Williams started asking Mantle all these technical questions about hitting...something that was obviously his passion.

Mantle made a joke to the effect of "After that I couldn't hit for nothing, cause I was thinking about it too much."

So maybe there are athletes that can just do it. Maybe there are those who can do it, but also try to "Figure it out" and try to get better day by day, even if it means experimenting and making changes and seeing what happens.

I can see someone who didn't play much if any baseball becoming a good coach for younger players...teaching mechanics of throwing / fielding / hitting etc, IF they put enough energy and effort in studying the game. Now more than ever, the information is out there for the taking...although it can be tough sorting through the silt to get to the nuggets of gold...

But I would think that teaching situations....to me, again my opinion, it would take someone who played the game a good bit...but not only played it, but paid attention to what was going on.

I was a pitcher...so when I wasn't pitching I was watching the game. Keeping score, charting pitches, watching situations..heck we used to take bets (laps) on what the coach on our team or the opposing team would do in this situation or that situation...

I still get coaches, and players if they are new playing for me, that are shocked that I don't call the majority of the pitches.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always figured the best way for a pitcher and a catcher to learn is by doing it on their own. To me, calling each pitch is like giving them a fish to eat, but not showing them how to fish.

I rarely call a pitch, but when I do, I'm okay with the pitcher or catcher calling me off, IF they can explain after the fact WHY they called me off..regardless whether it worked or not. To me it shows they are THINKING.

I guess everyone's mentality is different. I guess that also effects why some players make good pitchers, some make good catchers etc...

So, under that argument I guess a former college OF or 1B who never pitched (or caught) could never be an effective pitching coach? It's hard to make a convincing argument that his college experience really makes much difference in such a case.

But, many non-pitchers in college end up coaching HS pitchers all the times. Sometimes they are sucessful, frequently not. It all boils down to whether they are willing to do the work to educate themselves, and have the ability to teach it to their kids.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
I think you have to play the game to some extent in order to an effective coach. It's one thing to quote what others have said that you get from clinics and speakers versus saying something along the lines of "when I played I used to do this....".

Also, if a coach played at a higher level is creates an instant credibility that someone who hasn't played doesn't have. You still have to get the job done to keep that credibility but it's still there.

I think having a natural knack for something often makes people poor teachers. I don't think even they understand why they're good and more significant; they usually have little patience for those who can't do it as well. Consider the subject of Mathmatics. Most families have one parent who handles this subject with their kids and it's often not the one who is good at math.

Just finished reading a great book, "Red Sox Rule" largely about the success Terry Francona had in Boston. It is a fantastic coaching story. It covers the failures as well as the successes along with the lessons learned along the way.

So much goes into how you relate to the players. Someone once said, "people don't care what you know until they know how much you care." A truly great coach will know how to do that with a lot of different type of players.

I used to question the value of psychologists until I heard Dr. Laura explain it. We all have blind spots that limit our success. A good counselor/coach/teacher will not only recognize the blind spot but have the unique ability to open one’s eyes to see the problem and solution.

Knowledge alone is nearly useless without the wisdom and humility to convey it.

Well to further add to that...

I wonder how many former professional or college pitchers simply teach the same things they were taught? Right or wrong... and we all know that each player is different. While I agree there are constants in pitching (and it most everything else for that matter) my opinion is that a "Cookie cutter" methodology just won't cut it.

Imagine someone trying to fix Jim Furyk's swing...because if you hadn't seen him actually play, a golf pro would swear his swing would never work.

Without mentioning any names, one of the greatest athletes to ever play the game once explained the five tools to me. He actually was a five tool player!

1. Home to First
2. First to Third
3. Throwing accuracy
4. Arm Strength
5. Hitting to all fields

No mention of fielding!

Obviously, he didn't know what the 5 tools are. That kind of surprised me.

quote:

I used to question the value of psychologists until I heard Dr. Laura explain it. We all have blind spots that limit our success. A good counselor/coach/teacher will not only recognize the blind spot but have the unique ability to open one’s eyes to see the problem and solution.

Did the Red Sox get rid of their psychologist this year? Maybe that is the problem with the Cubs... they have a poor psychologist. The Cardinals must have the best psychologist.

Just being sarcastic... I'm sure psycologists have helped many players. Good coaches are problem solvers.

PGStaff,

That's funny but he's not the only ML hitter who believes fielding is a bothersome thing you have to do until your next time at bat.

There was a thread recently about the characteristics of a good coach. Did anyone list "exceptional playing ability"? I know I didn't.

Playing experience is certainly valuable, but there are players who would have no idea how to teach someone how to do what they do.

I suspect there are plenty of coaches who can spot the adjustments a player needs to make to improve, even if the coach would not have the ability to make that adjustment himself if the tables were turned.

Do you differentiate between being a good instructor versus a good coach? I can see where the playing ability may correlate to the ability to instruct on various technical aspects.

I'll posit the theory that being a good instructor is only a part of being a good coach.

How can a player teach himself without a coach?
How important is the coach to self development.
He can be a leader to direct a player to self-learn.

Bob

I don't think there is a clear cut answer here. I don't think you have to have played to be a great coach. As long as you surround yourself with a great staff. As long as you work to learn as much as possible and have a passion to continue to learn. As long as you can motivate, communicate, delegate and appreciate. Motivate your staff and players to be the very best they can be. Communicate with your staff and players in a manner that brings out the best in them and is clear and consistent. Delegate to others who are better qualified and in a better position to teach the players. Appreciate the fact that just because your the hs does not mean you know more than the other people around you.

Does it help to have played the game? Without a doubt. And the fact is if you take the same principles above along with the experience of actually playing your way ahead of the game. Does it help if you have played at a high level? I think so because every players goal is to play at the next level above where they are. If you apply the same principles above. Does it help if you were a star at the level you played at? Maybe if you can check your ego long enough to apply the same principles above. Does it help if you were a guy that had to work his tail off to play? Maybe if you can apply those same principles stated above.

I have seen former MLB players, Managers attempt to teach and coach and it was not pretty. They simply could not convey to HS aged players what they were trying to do or wanted them to do. They lacked the understanding of how teach or coach "down" to the level of the players they were trying to teach or coach. Some did things naturally very well and simply had no idea how to teach something to someone that they never had to learn how to do. Some simply could not understand why players could not just "pick it up" like they did. And some of these guys were and are outstanding teachers and coaches of the game. When I say coach "down" I don't mean your not trying to teach the kids how to play at the highest level. Its more of a terminology thing or an expectation thing of where they are right now.

I have worked with some coaches who were great teachers of the fundementals of the game. But they were not very good coaches. I have worked with some guys who couldn't teach the game. But they were outstanding coaches. And I have been around some great coaches who could really teach the game. They come from all backgrounds in the game.

My best coaches have always been my Sr's who have spent four years in the program and have worked very hard to be the best players they can be. They are the guys taking what they have learned and bought into and give it to the younger guys in the program. There is nothing like watching a Sr take a kid to the cage and work with him while you watch. Or watching a Sr take a guy to the pen and work with him his blocking while he catches pens.

I have no idea if its true or not but I have heard Lou Holtz's never played football. I also had a HS football coach who never played past rec ball but loved the game. He was a heck of a football coach. The best I ever played for. Surround yourself with great teachers of the game and great people who understand what makes guys tick. It will help make you a very good coach. And check the ego at the door. Your job is to help kids reach their full potential in this game. Not see how far you can puff your chest out. JMHO

Coach May, great post.

I think your point about "Coaching Down" is a very important point. I've seen guys who knew the game inside and out, and who could definitely teach and coach the game, but they had trouble with younger or more inexperienced players.

Maybe patience plays a part. Maybe maturity of the target audience plays a part.

But I also believe that communication, as you mentioned is the key here.

Every person learns in a different way. So the same can be said for athletes.

Some players are are visual. They need to SEE what they need to do, and they can go from there.

Some players need you to talk them through it.

Some just need to DO IT to get it.

Perception is reality.

You can say one thing to a team, and half of them understand what you are trying to get across. But if you change your wording, talking about the same thing, that simple change in the WAY you are trying to convey something, the other half suddenly gets it.

You also mention motivation. Players can be motivated in different ways as well. Some players need you to push them. Others don't do as well when being pushed, they need to be led in the right direction. And to make it even more complex, every player has their good days and bad days, and different techniques and approaches can work, or not work, at different times.

As for Lou Holtz, I wasn't sure either so I looked it up.

According to Wikipedia, he was an "undersized" linebacker at Kent State University.