Team Make-up/Article

I consider them coaches that are looking for highly skilled players to create an elite team. The "cream rising to the top."

The reputation that some of these teams have earned has some players looking for them.

In the end this is actually a good thing; for the sport and for the player.

 

Some Notes...

It should be noted that A, B, and C-Level's do not necessarily have anything to do with talent level. I have had players on my teams in the past that have A-level talent, but end up being a C-level players because that is who they choose to be. Much of the A, B, and C decision comes from within the player - not so much from what the coach can bring out of them. There are times when a C-level player will elevate their play to B, and B to A, but I would say these times are more the exception than the rule.

Many would ask why even have a C-player on your team. Again, this comes to competitive balance of your organization/team. If you had a team completely made up of A-level players you would: (a) have a team full of dysfunction with everyone pouting/crying/screaming at each other, or (b) not have a team at all because everyone left for another organization that will let them play every inning.

Having a team full of B-players woudl be great, but I believe we as coaches inevitiably seek out the A-level player for our teams. When we find them, we drool over them and work hard to add them to our team, thus sacrificing a B-level position.

This leads me back to the C-level player. They are necessary because they serve a particular roll. That role will be small, but if you as a coach play your cards correctly, the role can be very effective. It is a matter of finding the things that the C-player is good at: defense, batting, pitching for a short span, running? Generally, there will be something that you can utilize this player for, and then she will most likely be content to going back to her "backseat role."

 

I believe the article was referring to personality types--not talent or skill level or potential or desire, per se.

 

My apologies. I didn't mean your policy was sad; I meant it was sad that some people fall into the lower category.

Based on my interpretation that the ABC designations are describing personalities I also meant that trying to change the person would be more or less futile; although it would still be attempted by many.

 

A's become C's if you're not careful

A's expect more from everyone around them, even their superiors. It would take a special coach with nothing but time on his hands to be succesful with all A's. A's become C's if not properly managed and can tear down a team as quickly as they can help it. A's with the proper attitude can help any team with B's and C's if they're actively involved in helping with instruction. B's and C's usually don't like the A's, so be careful how you handle this.

B's need praise. They know they're good at what they do, enjoy the work their doing, but need recognition for doing it. It doesn't take much to keep this group happy and performing. Any coach that knows the game and does a good job of teaching instead of coaching will be very successful with this group. The majority of the team must have many things in common though. Relationships are important to this group.Common goals, aspirations, and dreams allow this group to build lasting realtionships and play for one another.

C's are complex. Many have the ability but lack in other areas. Their attitude, work ethic, and effort fall short of their capabililty. Often people see their potential and think that they just need someone with a different style to maximize their potential. This is the assumption that I use to manage to. As a manager this group frustrated me to know end because I never understood, and still don't, how some people simply don't want more out of life. I've found that there is not a place in any organization for this type of person. Good news is that they learn with time and usually perform better at their new place of employment or with their new team. Not neccesarily because they want to, but because they have to. They begin to realize that they can be replaced.. Still a "C" though.

I see many upstart teams that have a good mixture of all 3 classifications.If their intent is to upgrade talent, they can successfully move their team to B's and A's. They have to act quickly though or will lose some of their A's and B's. When they start losing people they'll replace them as quickly as possible and will more than likely have to settle for whoever they can get.. More than likely it will be C's.

Most of the established teams with good coaches/teachers have more A's and B's than C's. Time and reputation have allowed them to build their team. C's slip in but are usually replaced quickly.


Daddy ball teams have mostly C's. I believe the reason is two fold. Dad doesn't want anyone to compete with their daughter and A's and B's don't stick around trying.

Elite teams that are all A's have more turnover than the others. Everyone is the star and wants to be in the spotlight. The teams reputation allows them to bring in other "A's" at will and the individuals will always be successful, but team unity is pretty much null and void.

 

Now If We Go Back ??

Now if we go back to personality ,attitude or etc...I know a lot of Elite teams that ought to have "C" Players, if we are talking about attitudes. They seem to know everything and are not coachable !!! Guru

 

I read Cindy's artilce before I got to this thread, and I think she has got to mean HS ball. I know you coaches have forgotten more than I know, but there is no way a TB coach is going to go down his check list at tryouts and say, "..hmm, got too many A players. Need to get rid of a couple for a B and C..." That's nuts. I have never seen it. EVER!

I know the personality types, but I want to see a raise of hands who would cut an A player for a B or C, especially at the 16u/18U level.

Cindy did a real good job on this article but it's HS, not TB. But if the articlel DOES pertain to TB and beyond, what she's done is give you ideas on how to help you manage all those A players, not necessarily have a good mix.

Daddy Ball excluded of course.

 

C'mon Bro you know I respect the heck out of you, but what coach is going to want a kid sitting on the bench happy to be there? I haven't met any kid happy sitting, backseat role or not. Coaches tell me 10 or 11 is a good working number. The only ones sitting better be a starting pitcher and catcher resting for the next game. Peace.