Organizing Teams
After reading the topic of this blog post and starting to read Chapter 5 of the textbook the team that immediately came to my mind was my high school baseball team my senior year. I was relating the topics covered to the complexities of the baseball team. The text then went on to use a baseball team as an example of how you do not need much teamwork to be successful, and how baseball allows you to be successful with many individuals that are good by themselves. I find this to be a very simplistic view of baseball, and one that actually may be more true the higher you go in skill level. For example, this is likely much more true to teams participating in the MLB, but I think it is much less true for teams at the high school level.
My high school in Chicago had class sizes of about 250 students per grade. Also, it required testing to get into and was very selective, which in turn means that the students that enroll there do so not for sports, but rather for academics and the arts programs. We would play schools that would have a few thousand students per grade, and would have kids that focused more on sports and these teams would be hand-picked with the best players from that school. While these teams were hand-picked from the best players, our team did not have the luxury to even cut players and we had room for every person that tried out. Our school still managed to field two teams, a varsity and a fresh-soph team. For the first year our fresh-soph team was not successful at all, and we had a losing record. However, by the time we got to our senior season we became very successful, with many of the same players as when we started.
One reason I believe this to be the case is that we were a very close group. In my senior year we had about 11 seniors on the team, and less than 4 underclassmen. Our 9 starters would consist of almost all seniors that had been playing together since freshman year. Not only did we keep the same players, but we kept the same coach. Schools have different head coaches for different teams, and we were no exception. However, the year that most of us became juniors and were promoted to the varsity team was the same year the varsity coach left, and our fresh-soph head coach became the new varsity head coach, meaning he would be our coach for all four years. This change saves us players from having to switch management styles, as these two coaches were very different. The coach that left was former Army, and was very strict and controlling. The new coach was much more relaxed and already knew all of our strengths and weaknesses as players, and also allowed us to make decisions together to allow us to be more comfortable with our roles on the field. All of this has to do with familiarity with the team. There are two "distinguishing features" that I feel our team did very well in, which were having the right mix of expertise and having a common commitment to working relationships. I am one example, as the team knew based on my skills where I would best be able to use my abilities and I from that I knew exactly what my role was every play of every game. I ended up playing every game of my varsity career in Left Field and hitting first in the batting order.
Our team most resembled a Simple Hierarchy structure. The text would suggest baseball teams had one boss, and then did not interact much after that. This is not usually the case, as when on the field there are hierarchies. The rule of thumb for most teams is that the catcher is the main field general to ensure people are in position, and after that the shortstop is in control of the infield, and the center fielder is in control of the outfield. For our team however, I was the manager of the outfield, as I was most familiar with the positions playing every game out there, while the other two outfield positions would have different people switch off playing them. I had the ability to move the other outfielders before every pitch based on the situation of the game, such as who was hitting, how many outs there were, and if there were runners on base. I also reminded every player that came out to play the outfield that they had to communicate on every ball to the outfield as to who would catch it, but also when one person had to chase a ball down, the other teammates had to yell at him where he was going to throw the ball when he did get it, which saves him the time of analyzing the runners when turning around and could be the difference in getting an out. We also had a player who played almost every inning at shortstop, and he had to communicate and manage our other infielders. Our team communicated in many more ways than other teams did, which I feel helped us to make much fewer errors and to win more games. One way in which we communicated that no other team did was that the infielders would signal the outfielders whether the pitcher was throwing a fastball or an off-speed pitch by either making a fist or having an open hand behind his back. Hitters tend to pull off-speed pitches more, and this signaling allowed me to position better, get better jumps, and to get countless more outs than if I had been left in the dark.
Our senior year we ended up losing in the playoffs one game away from being able to play at Wrigley Field as part of the final four teams in the playoffs of Chicago, and were a much smaller school and had less individual talent. However, all of us and our coach were familiar with one another. We knew how to interact with one another if somebody made a mistake, and we all knew our strengths and what our roles were on the field. Knowing each other for four years we were able to spend less time practicing basic situations and were able to implement communication signals to help each other, and also to practice more complex game situations to be better prepared. We had much more success than people would have predicted, and it was largely due to the way our team was organized.
My high school in Chicago had class sizes of about 250 students per grade. Also, it required testing to get into and was very selective, which in turn means that the students that enroll there do so not for sports, but rather for academics and the arts programs. We would play schools that would have a few thousand students per grade, and would have kids that focused more on sports and these teams would be hand-picked with the best players from that school. While these teams were hand-picked from the best players, our team did not have the luxury to even cut players and we had room for every person that tried out. Our school still managed to field two teams, a varsity and a fresh-soph team. For the first year our fresh-soph team was not successful at all, and we had a losing record. However, by the time we got to our senior season we became very successful, with many of the same players as when we started.
One reason I believe this to be the case is that we were a very close group. In my senior year we had about 11 seniors on the team, and less than 4 underclassmen. Our 9 starters would consist of almost all seniors that had been playing together since freshman year. Not only did we keep the same players, but we kept the same coach. Schools have different head coaches for different teams, and we were no exception. However, the year that most of us became juniors and were promoted to the varsity team was the same year the varsity coach left, and our fresh-soph head coach became the new varsity head coach, meaning he would be our coach for all four years. This change saves us players from having to switch management styles, as these two coaches were very different. The coach that left was former Army, and was very strict and controlling. The new coach was much more relaxed and already knew all of our strengths and weaknesses as players, and also allowed us to make decisions together to allow us to be more comfortable with our roles on the field. All of this has to do with familiarity with the team. There are two "distinguishing features" that I feel our team did very well in, which were having the right mix of expertise and having a common commitment to working relationships. I am one example, as the team knew based on my skills where I would best be able to use my abilities and I from that I knew exactly what my role was every play of every game. I ended up playing every game of my varsity career in Left Field and hitting first in the batting order.
Our team most resembled a Simple Hierarchy structure. The text would suggest baseball teams had one boss, and then did not interact much after that. This is not usually the case, as when on the field there are hierarchies. The rule of thumb for most teams is that the catcher is the main field general to ensure people are in position, and after that the shortstop is in control of the infield, and the center fielder is in control of the outfield. For our team however, I was the manager of the outfield, as I was most familiar with the positions playing every game out there, while the other two outfield positions would have different people switch off playing them. I had the ability to move the other outfielders before every pitch based on the situation of the game, such as who was hitting, how many outs there were, and if there were runners on base. I also reminded every player that came out to play the outfield that they had to communicate on every ball to the outfield as to who would catch it, but also when one person had to chase a ball down, the other teammates had to yell at him where he was going to throw the ball when he did get it, which saves him the time of analyzing the runners when turning around and could be the difference in getting an out. We also had a player who played almost every inning at shortstop, and he had to communicate and manage our other infielders. Our team communicated in many more ways than other teams did, which I feel helped us to make much fewer errors and to win more games. One way in which we communicated that no other team did was that the infielders would signal the outfielders whether the pitcher was throwing a fastball or an off-speed pitch by either making a fist or having an open hand behind his back. Hitters tend to pull off-speed pitches more, and this signaling allowed me to position better, get better jumps, and to get countless more outs than if I had been left in the dark.
Our senior year we ended up losing in the playoffs one game away from being able to play at Wrigley Field as part of the final four teams in the playoffs of Chicago, and were a much smaller school and had less individual talent. However, all of us and our coach were familiar with one another. We knew how to interact with one another if somebody made a mistake, and we all knew our strengths and what our roles were on the field. Knowing each other for four years we were able to spend less time practicing basic situations and were able to implement communication signals to help each other, and also to practice more complex game situations to be better prepared. We had much more success than people would have predicted, and it was largely due to the way our team was organized.
I like this post a lot. There was good and rich detail. It seemed obvious that you enjoyed writing the post and that you had a good sense of what caused your senior team to be successful. I really have only one question, which is about the positioning of the players. How did you know this. Were the other teams also similar to how they were the year before, so you were familiar with the players? Or is there some other way to read the situation to be able to get the players in the right position? That bit could use further explanation.
ReplyDeleteYou also reported that your team responded better to the more laid back coach. But some teams do better with a strict disciplinarian. So you might comment on that part a little. Could it be that the type of students who went to your school wouldn't function well under the strict approach because it contrasted with how they performed in other settings? I wonder about stuff like that.
Way back when I was on the tennis team in my high school. Our coach was also quite laid back, but I think that was more the times and location (this was early 1970s in New York.) Tennis is really more individualistic, although I gathered from a student I had last year who was on the U of I team, that the practices can be team oriented. I don't remember much practicing back then.
Not part of the prompt, but something I'd find interesting is whether you still connect with your coach and former teammates. If you really had something then, it tends to stick with you, though pure nostalgia maybe shouldn't motivate you now. But good connections are a value and it is experiences like that which explain how they are formed.
As for positioning in the outfield, I was by far the one playing in the outfield the most as I was best at it. The other two players out there with me would sometimes just start out of position, either a little too far in or leaving to wide of a gap between one another. These positions would usually stay the same from batter to batter and I would move people around depending on if the batter was a lefty or a right, or if they were a 3 or 4 hitter, who tend to have more power. Most teams we played did have the same players as well, so if we played a better team I would have us stay back more compared to a lesser team. I would also recognize some of the better hitters from teams in our conference and would be able to position the others based on tendencies I noticed.
DeleteAs for the coaching style, most of us were not thought of us the vary athletic type, being in a small nerdy school. We were also used to pressures in school than in competitive, athletic situations. Most of us felt much more pressure from the more strict coach, and many of us did not act as well under pressure.
The same head coach is still there, and my brother plays on the team now. I play 16-inch softball in Chicago with that coach and some of our old players, so we stayed in touch. Me and another kid from the team also coached a summer game to fill in for him when the coach couldn't make it.
Did the communication that you implemented for the outfield take a while, or have any unintended Consequences? I played football in high school in a situation similar to you. By the end of my junior year we had 13 people who could still play. Our coach, focused on communication so as to make up for the difference in players. While it ended up working in the long run, it took us a game or three to get the hang of it. While we were still practicing the system that he devised we kept making mistakes, that would not have happened if we played without the system. Did something similar happen for you?
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting post, it seems that the psychology of going to such a selective school made you guys prefer a laid back coach, as you must already be having so much pressure on the academic spectrum of things. I played soccer in HS and our coach was very strict, to the point where players would be dropped from games if they came late to practice. Discipline was integral to our team. In the long run I felt the lessons I learned in practice also helped me in life.
ReplyDelete