Some different high school roster questions

[default]

So most of the posters here agree that varsity rosters should be made up of the girls, regardless of class, who give the team the best chance to win. But let me throw out 3 scenarios ... assume in all 3 cases that regardless of your decisions, you have enough girls to field a varsity and JV team, and during the season, when varsity is playing at home, JV is away and vice versa:

1) You have a freshman who is the fastest girl in the program and could be a valuable pinch and courtesy runner for the varsity. She has some skills and potential, but neither her bat nor her glove are going to crack the starting varsity lineup this year, while she'd be the starting shortstop for JV. She's going to be on your roster come tournament time ... but Varsity or JV during the season?

2) Your 2 best pitchers are pretty much dead even in terms of skill right now, but one's a senior who has been with the program 4 years (her junior year as the #2 pitcher) and can also play outfield, and the other is a freshman who is still improving and who you know is going to be your #1 for sure next year, but who can't crack the starting lineup if she doesn't pitch. You know your team is a .500 team this year, but you're excited about the next few years. Put the freshman on varsity this year and let her get the experience, or let her pitch JV?

3) Your #1 pitcher is a senior and a stud and is going to pitch 85-90% of your innings. Your next best pitcher in the program is a sophomore who will be your stud next year but isn't going to play varsity otherwise this year, while your #3 is a senior but a big drop off in talent. She has a good attitude but she isn't going to play every day if she isn't pitching. Put the sophomore on varsity in case the #1 goes down, or let her pitch JV this year?

 

[default]

1. JV
2. I would have her go back and forth. We have many JV and Varisty games not on the same days.
3. JV.
I have found most high school kids want to play not set the Bench>

 

[default]

1) JV

2) JV

3) JV

And I would make sure to get all 3 kids some varsity time so they know they are a big part of the future programs.

I have seen a lot of coaches in various sports who tend to look toward the future to much and it hurts the current team.

 

[default]

Uber ... I hear you, but can make an argument in all 3 situations, but perhaps most easily in #1 that it will hurt the current team by not putting this fastest runner on varsity.

 

[default]

1. JV no doubt

2. JV, but try to bring her up for a couple of starts for experience

3. JV, you can always get through one game with #3 and then bring the sophomore up to finish the season if there is an injury.

I would assume that all 3 will be with the varsity during tournament.

 

[default]

That's a good point coach. I would say that you could always bring the player up for big league games etc.

But your point is well taken and I kind of agree with you lol

 

[default]

JV is the development level. If her bat and glove need improvment then she needs all the playing time she can get and not just being a runner.

 

[default]

I guess that I am a little unconventional here but this is the way that I see it. BTW both of my daughters were very good varsity players in their day and each played at least one year of JV so I have seen all sides of the issue.

1) Any player who can help the varsity team should be on the varsity team. Nothing beats the experience of being in big games on any level. Plus the continuing work that she will get at the varsity level and being around better players will make her better. Do you want her first experience in a big game to be in a district final?

2) Any player who can help the varsity team should be on the varsity team. Nothing beats the experience of being in big games on any level. You should never waste good pitching at the JV level. If the Sr. knows that there is a hungry freshman behind her she will be sure to stay sharp. Plus what if the No. 1 sprians an ankle in the 3rd inning of a 0-0 game, wouldn't it be nice to have a solid back-up to come in and give the "team" a decent chance to win the game. Nothing that will happen in a JV will compare to the experience that will be gained on the varisty team. Again do you want the first varsity game experience that the No. 2 pitcher gets to be in the district final if she is needed there?

3) Any player who can help the varsity team should be on the varsity team. Nothing beats the experience of being in big games on any level. Why would you ever want your No. 3 to pitch ahead of your No. 2 unless she earned it by changing the order. Without competition players seldom push themselves hard enough to change their situation.


You probably noticed a theme here. I think that the best players should always be on the varisty even in the slightest of capacities. I don't know what the Jv level competiton is around the rest of the state but what I have seen of it over the past 10 + years it is not something that a good player can get excited about playing. They have little or no intensity and the outcome is meaningless. The players know it and they play accourdingly. I know that this sounds harsh, but I have seen more then my share of it and it is common. I'm sure that there is the rare exception but overall I feel that the average JV roster has one or two players who will ever make an impact at the varsity level. Don't spam me because I know that this is not going to be popular but I have no kids in high school anymore and I have a much different perspective.

Players are not going to get better just by virtue of getting playing time on the JV. They will get better by working hard to break into the line-up on the varsity team and at the same time she will be helping to make whoever is in front of her in the line-up better.

 

[default]

Your opinion is valued, Ohio Wave, and I think you make great points on all of these. I no longer am coaching or have a daughter involved at this level, but I faced slightly different versions of all 3 of these scenarios at one point or another, and they were not easy decisions. As a varsity coach, I wanted to give us the best chance to win every game, yet you can't help but think about what might be best for the individual and the program in the long run as well. I'm still interested in hearing what more people have to say about this ... its easy to say we need to field the best varsity team possible, but these are the kinds of individual decisions that coaches sometimes have to deal with.

 

[default]

1. JV, playing 26 games is better than sitting 22
2. JV, ditto
3. JV, ditto

Develop your younger players properly by letting them play.

 

[default]

Your opinion is valued, Ohio Wave, and I think you make great points on all of these. I no longer am coaching or have a daughter involved at this level, but I faced slightly different versions of all 3 of these scenarios at one point or another, and they were not easy decisions. As a varsity coach, I wanted to give us the best chance to win every game, yet you can't help but think about what might be best for the individual and the program in the long run as well. I'm still interested in hearing what more people have to say about this ... its easy to say we need to field the best varsity team possible, but these are the kinds of individual decisions that coaches sometimes have to deal with.

coachjwb I will be the first to say that this way is not for everyone. There are many different situations out there that could have multiple solutions. One thing that's for sure is that there is no 100% right way and 100% wrong way. Every program has to find it's own level. Not every high school fastpitch program is at the same place regarding talent and expectations. Theres nothing wrong with that.

I guess that I prepared my answer from a best case senario that assumes a school has enough quality players to even make this discussion meaningful.

I know that in our situation at our local high school the senario that I listed above is likely what would happen. I respect the fact that other schools will face an entirely different set of circumstances.

 

[default]

Just a thought here, but it seems to me that people are putting too much value on where the kids are placed at the beginning of the season. Just because you put a younger player on JV to start the season does not mean they can never move up after proving themselves, or if injuries affect the varsity roster.
I also cannot stand seeing younger players moved up just to sit the bench. That to me makes very little sense. There must be an upperclassmen who could get you through one game until you can move the younger player up. Let them get lots of game time on JV and bring them up when they can actually play at the varsity level. I have seen too many young players sit and stagnate on the varsity bench. You can see their enthusiasm and love of the game just draining out.

All that being said- I strongly believe that if a freshmen or sophomore will start on varsity they should be there.

 

[default]

Have a couple different perspectives. As a coach, I would have all three players start on the JV. Playing experience is more important to me than sitting on a varsity bench. However, that could obviously change during the season. The big difference nowadays is that many of these girls play travel and get a ton of experience outside of school, in and out of pressure situations. That wasn't the case when I was playing.

From a players perspective, I played on JV as a freshman until the tournament started. Think baseball though. Our coach had an opinion that freshman should play JV. Anyway, he kept a close eye on the JV. First game of the tournament, bottom of 7, tying run on 2nd base. Pinch-hits a freshman for a senior, freshman hits a double in the gap, and then ends up scoring winning run. Then he starts freshman at 1st base rest of tournament run, even though player had never played 1st. The coach adapted during the season. Also, the players that can handle the pressure spots will handle them regardless of whether they have been playing up or not. The players that cannot handle the pressure won't regardless of whether they've been up all year.

 

[default]

1. Both - this kid could be on base several times a game depending on how good a hitter your pitcher or catcher is. She can courtesy for one of them and still sub later for another player.

Varsity for games you might need the baserunning to win; JV if you don't.

2. Varsity - she can finish games or alternate starts with the senior. If they are considered dead even now, they should both see the varsity mound and let the competition drive both to improve. They will not finish the year dead even and you don't want your potential number 1 pitcher by tournament time on the JV team.

3. Both - same as #1. If you are about to play a team that you don't feel you can beat with #3, than the sophomore #2 needs to be on the bench. Other games, pitch for JV.

I waver on 3. a little, mostly because, as Ohio Wave posted, my solution could end up giving more varsity time to #3 as she could finish games that are in hand while #2 is pitching JV.

Varsity should be given every chance to succeed regardless of the team's record.

 

[default]

To answer coachjwb's questions... First, there are individual circumstances that arise and I have definitely kept one of the top 12-15 girls on JV to get playing time. I have never kept anyone who I thought would be a varsity starter on the JV.

1) That's an odd situation. Usually if someone is that fast and has potential, they are usually good enough to be on varsity right away. But in the situation described, I'd probably have that girl on JV for non-league games and on varsity for league games and the tournament. If the varsity and JV play at the same place (I know the situation had it opposite), then that girl has her varsity uniform in her bag ready to go at the drop of a hat any time she dresses JV.

2) She is on varsity. This is especially the case if the varsity and JV play at opposite schools. I want the top two pitchers on varsity, especially if they are about equal in talent. They will both get plenty of time. Even if there was a clear #1, I want the #2 on varsity. She will still get time and I want her there in case she needs to come in at any time. She can get plenty of innings in travel ball, innings that will be far more valuable than JV innings.

3) Varsity again. This situation sets up a contradiction in the way I see it. If the sophomore is a "stud", as the situation is described, then the #1 on my staff is probably not getting 85-90% of the innings. So I guess I can't see that exact situation being possible on a team I would coach. The sophomore is going to get probably half of the non-league innings.

 

[default]

Joe, in #2 you touched on something that I purposely left out ... what are these girls doing in the summer? I got into a debate with the other varsity coach because he felt the younger pitcher needed to get JV innings in, and my argument was that they would get those innings, and actually much more challenging innings, in during travel ball. You are also right that #1 and #3 are both a little odd as described, but they are not inconceivable ... I did face slight variations of all 3 of these at one time or another.

 

[default]

I'm not sure I totally agree with "their going to get alot of quality innings in travel ball" scenario. You're right they will, but they are sitting on the varsity bench getting very little rubber time, and then they are expected to be travel ball ready without any real practice time. Remember these girls cannot play or practice with their travel teams while they are sitting on their varisity benches.

 

[default]

My general opinion is that is is almost always better to have a girl playing than sitting. If that means JV, then that is where she belongs.

In case 1, no doubt in my mind. She should be on JV. Bringing her up to run in a few varsity games will help hone her for tournament. But developing her for next year is just as important.

In case 2 - I agree with Joe - the pitching load should be split. In some schools that rely on the caste system for promotion to varsity, this is a hard pill to swallow. But equal pitchers should get equal time, and the fact that the team will take their lumps this year (be a .500 team) is the perfect reason to have the freshman pitch half the time.

Case 3 - once again, varsity is probably the right place. If the game is planned to be a blowout and you want to send the sophomore over to JV to get a complete game, that could work. But she should be getting innings this year if she is going to be the stud next year. That implies she is good enough.

I don't subscribe to the belief that the best players always have to be on the varsity. Sometimes you have a position player that - as a senior - is going to dominate her position. If the next player to hold that spot doesn't get some innings, next year becomes hard. She probably should be playing JV to get the innings and improve her skills. Coaches need to take the long view - not everything is about this year, but about what you are investing in for future years.

You can bring players up for tournament, so the investment is not lost. (I don't see girls getting either smarter or better sitting on the varsity bench.)

You also need to keep in mind that the geniuses at OHSAA set limits on the number of games players can enter during the season. So you really can't double up on playing time for some girls.

 

[default]

For what its worth, at our school most of these girls would be on both. We schedule all the JV games to follow the Varsity games. The young "back-up" pitchers, runners, pinch hitters, etc. change out of varsity uniforms and then start JV. I think it's a pretty common practice in Southwestern PA....I'm thinking by reading this thread it doesn't happen a lot in Ohio?

 

[default]

We're in PA, and we don't play that kind of schedule, at least not for section games. Our JV usually plays the same school, but away on the same day Varsity plays them at home. But we're in AAAA - maybe each section comes to an agreement on how they schedule, and the smaller schools may need to cross-populate more than the large schools.