Monthly Archives: June 2024
You Have Stats – Use Them!

The movie and especially the book Moneyball details how the Oakland Athletics (A’s) helped pioneer the use of statistical data in making player decisions, from which players to acquire to who to play in the field on a daily basis. Their reason for doing it was primarily financial, i.e., they didn’t have the same kind of money to spend on well-known high-performers in order to compete so they had to look for the “hidden gems” – under-valued players who would deliver results while costing less.
The A’s had some very smart people (including a Harvard business grad) who wrote computer programs to help them parse through the mountains of data on every player in the league to find the ones who best fit the system they planned to use while still being within their price range. So you might think, well, ok for them but I don’t have those types of resources so what good does knowing all that do me?
In reality, though, most coaches today do have a lot of that type of information at their fingertips, at least about their own players. It’s contained within the GameChanger (or similar) apps the coaching staff or parents use to score and share game results with those who can’t be there.
On the home page for the team, the very last tab is labeled Stats. If you as a coach click on it you’ll see the cumulative statistics for all the games in hitting, pitching, and fielding.
Now, I understand that the stats aren’t always accurate since some people will score every ball that’s hit and gets someone on base a hit, even if an error was involved. But if you really want to take advantage of the value of stats, coaches, you can quickly train whoever is using on how to keep score properly so you can rely on the data that’s there.
The National Fastpitch Coaches Association also has online courses available for $9.99 that can teach this skill.
So how can having and using accurate statistical data help you as coaches win more games? Here’s an example, drawn from an actual team that apparently isn’t using the data at their disposal.
We will look at the hitting statistics for seven batters. We’ll just call them Player A, Player B, Player C, etc. We’ll look at batting average (BA), on-base percentage (OBP, which is how often they get on base through hits, walks, or hit by pitch), slugging percentage (SLG, the average number of bases a hitter gets each at-bat), and on base plus slugging (OPS, the sum of the on-base percentage plus slugging, which is a great measure of total productivity of the hitter).
Here are those stats for our seven players. The players are currently presented in a random order:
| Player | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS |
| A | .222 | .333 | .278 | .611 |
| B | .167 | .250 | .167 | .417 |
| C | .462 | .562 | .538 | 1.101 |
| D | .286 | .400 | .429 | .829 |
| E | .278 | .381 | .333 | .714 |
| F | .200 | .294 | .200 | .494 |
| G | .250 | .429 | .312 | .741 |
Ok, based on those numbers and a general understanding of how to put a lineup together (which I covered a couple of posts ago), how would you structure your batting order? Take a few moments to write it on a piece of paper without looking below; I’ll wait.
Let’s see how what you did compares to the actual lineup that was used when I pulled these stats. If you’re using a traditional lineup, it would probably look something like this:
- Player D
- Player E
- Player C
- Player G
- Player F
- Player A
- Player B
If you’re using a more modern approach that says put your best bats at the top so they come to bat more often, the lineup would probably look like this:
- Player C
- Player D
- Player E
- Player G
- Player A
- Player F
- Player B
Ok, now here’s what the actual lineup is:
- Player D
- Player A
- Player E
- Player G
- Player B
- Player F
- Player C
Do you see a problem here? The player with by far the highest batting average, on base percentage, slugging percentage, and on base + slugging (Player C) is hitting seventh, where she likely will get one at-bat per game, or two at most if the players ahead of her hit above their averages. In the meantime, Player B whose stats can only be called anemic at-best is hitting in the five slot, and Player A whose hitting line isn’t a whole lot better is in the two slot.
Is it any wonder that this team is struggling to score runs, much less win games?
Why would the lineup be structured this way? I can only guess, but that guess is the coach is relying on his “gut” or long-solidified impressions of who his top hitters are rather than taking the time to look at which players are actually producing statistically, game after game.
(It could also just be plain old playing favorites, but hopefully that’s not the case.)
If you want to win games you can’t and shouldn’t rely on your “gut” anymore. It’s like the the old scout thinking mentioned in Moneyball that so-and-so “looks like a ballplayer.”
That type of thinking is a dead end, whether you’re looking at the pro, collegiate, or youth level. You need instead to look at what is actually happening on the field, in the game, to determine which lineup is going to produce the most runs, which is a major key to winning ballgames.
The same is true for pitching and fielding too. You may think Pitcher A is your Ace, but if you look at the cold, hard stats you may find that Pitcher B does a better job of getting outs without giving up runs.
You may think Fielder A is your best bet at shortstop, but the stats could tell you Fielder B makes fewer errors while contributing to more “caught stealing” outs on throws from the same catcher.
All this information is there for you to use. All you have to do is click on it now and then to look at it.
Your eyes and your guts can lie. Statistics, if they’re properly kept, don’t.
Use the data you have to make better decisions and you’re likely to find you win more games. Or at least can justify your decisions should anyone ask, which in this day and age is a nice thing to have in your back pocket.
Statistics photo by Burak The Weekender on Pexels.com
Believe It or Not, It’s Not All About Winning

Can’t believe I have to cover this topic yet again, but recently I’ve heard some stories that show me it’s still important to talk about.
What topic, you ask? The importance of giving young players, particularly those who are 14 years old or less, a chance to develop, even if it means your team’s win-loss record isn’t as sparkly as you and your ego would like.
Take a 10U pitcher who just started taking pitching lessons. She’s starting to get the hang of it, but maybe she just went through a growth spurt and doesn’t quite have full command of her arms and legs yet.
As a result, although she is trying really hard she tends to walk more batters than she gets out. In fact, the last time you put her in she walked 20 batters .
Now you have a decision to make. One option is you decide she’s just not good enough to pitch for your team, you tell her she just doesn’t have what it takes to be a pitcher, and you never put her in again. Because if you do put her in it will be tough for your team to overcome the freebies and win the game.
The other is you encourage her and look for opportunities to put her in (as long as she is continuing to work at it). Maybe you schedule some “friendlies” or scrimmages during the week and commit to giving her at least an inning no matter what. You can even put a run limit on each inning so the damage isn’t too bad.
If she’s a little further along but not quite ready for prime time maybe you put her in during pool play. Or you let her pick up innings when your team is either really far ahead or really far behind.
There are lots of ways to be creative and develop the players who need a little more of it while not driving away the players who are currently further ahead.
The same goes for position players and hitters. When you play scrimmage games, try moving the players who usually see one at bat per game up higher in the lineup so they can gain a little more experience.
Sure, it might cost you a few runs today. But we all know the softball gods are going to bring one of those girls up at a critical time in a game that does mean something and where you have no options but to let them hit. Wouldn’t it be nice to know they have a little more experience and thus a better chance of coming through in the clutch?
Or perhaps it turns out that the girl you keep trying to hide in right field actually is becoming a decent fielder, and by putting her at second base for a couple of innings she starts developing the confidence to become a more important contributor in the future.
That’s the funny thing about working with young players. They all develop at different rates, and some who seem kind of awkward at 9 or 10 years of age turn out to be pretty decent athletes by the time they’re 14 or 15.
You just never know. Take that pitcher who walks 20 hitters that I mentioned earlier.
That’s actually a true story. I’m sure there were “better” pitchers on her team, and it would have been easy for her to get discouraged and quit if no one gave her a chance in a game.
Fortunately, some coach did, which is how Lisa Fernandez eventually came to become a three-time Gold Medal winning Olympian and arguably the greatest female fastpitch player ever.
Yes, winning is more fun than losing. But if you truly are “in it for the girls” (as every promotional piece for every team that has ever come along says) sometimes it’s worth sacrificing a few wins here and there to help ensure ALL of your players develop into the best versions of themselves they can be.
Set your ego aside and find ways to give your players the opportunities they need to learn and grow. They just may surprise you.
Lead photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com
What the WCWS Can Teach Us about the Changeup

Whenever I see one of my students after a tournament weekend, the first question I usually ask them is “How did it go?” Knowing how they performed in game situation is very helpful in determining what we’re going to work on in that lesson.
Hopefully I get more than “good” or “fine” or “terrible” as a response.
The next question I ask pitching students is “What pitches did you throw?” (assuming they have more than just a basic fastball). That’s where it can get a little dicey.
The answer I least like to hear is “Mostly just my fastball,” especially if that pitcher has also developed (or is developing) a decent (or better) changeup. Sorry, I know that was a lot of parentheses in one sentence but hopefully you followed it.
Now, I know that pitchers these days, especially the younger ones, often don’t have a lot of input into the pitch calling process. But I will still ask them why they didn’t throw their changeups more.
The typical answer are:
- The other team couldn’t hit my fastball so my coach didn’t want to give them a slower pitch to hit
- I threw one but it rolled in/went high/went wide so my coach didn’t want to throw it anymore
- I had a little trouble with it during warmups so my coach didn’t want to chance it in the game
- My coach says he/she doesn’t like the changeup or prefers to go with speed
- I threw a few but when one got hit my coach quit calling it
- I dunno
I get the thinking behind most of these reasons (except the last one). Coaches want to win games so will tend to go with what they think will accomplish that goal.
They also tend to be risk-averse, and often view a pitch that looks so different from everything else in the pitcher’s arsenal as too risky to throw, particularly in close games.
I hope those coaches were watching the #2024WCWS (Women’s College World Series). Because it was a veritable clinic on how effective a changeup can be – and how often it can be used.
I’ve commented to a number of people that I think I’ve seen more changeups thrown in one inning by some of these pitchers than I’ve seen in total over the last five years. It was like someone suddenly remembered how great the changeup is and passed a memo along to all the top D1 college teams in the country.
Stanford’s NiJaree Canady, to me, was the poster child for this display of pitching chicanery. Because she wasn’t just throwing a couple per inning.
No, she was often throwing at least a couple per HITTER!
She also did a great job of wiping out excuse #1 above. Canady was consistently throwing all her other pitches at 70 mph+.
I don’t care how good a hitter you are, that’s going to be tough to catch up to, especially if you can locate the ball to match the hitter’s weaknesses. At one point I saw a quote from Monica Abbott saying she thought Canady could be the first female pitcher to throw 80 mph in a game in a couple of years.
Yet Canady and the Stanford staff didn’t go there and try to blow everyone away with speed. They actually used that speed to set up her changeup, which is where she was getting a lot of her strikeouts. If it’s good enough for one of the last teams standing in the WCWS…
Another thing I saw was various pitchers (including Canady) throw some sub-par changeups. They would throw them for close balls in tough counts.
I remember at least one pitcher (I think it was Nicole May in the final game of the championship series, a pretty important time) roll the ball in on a change at least once, maybe twice. Yet the Oklahoma coaches didn’t quit calling it.
I also remember a few along the way going high, going wide, and (gasp!) even getting hit – occasionally for a home run. But those pitchers’ coaches didn’t quit calling it, because they understood that’s going to happen, even to very high-level pitchers, and that the next one in the zone will still be effective.
There were also times when a pitcher might not be throwing her best changeup. But again, on softball’s biggest yearly stage, the coaches understood that changing speeds that way could be effective even if the pitch didn’t go for a called strike.
After all, nobody wants to look bad on national TV swinging through a changeup, so it gets in the hitters’ heads. If a highly accomplished, high-level hitter can feel that way imagine the psychological pressure a changeup can put on a 12U, 14U, or even older hitter.
Probably the only argument against the changeup that the WCWS didn’t answer directly was the coach wants to call the pitches he/she thinks will win the most games. And throwing a changeup on a regular basis doesn’t give us as much assurance of winning this game right now as throwing a speed pitch does.
So here’s my question: where do you think all these high-level pitchers learned to throw their changeups in pressure situations? I can pretty much guarantee that it wasn’t at the WCWS, or even during the college regular season.
Those pitchers most likely had youth coaches who believed in them, and believed in developing them to become the best they could be. I don’t have direct knowledge of the circumstances but I’d bet pretty good money that NiJaree Canady, Kelly Maxwell, Nicole May, Teagan Kavan, and all the other pitchers we watched this past weekend who throw in the high 60s and low 70s didn’t have youth team coaches who told them to just go out and blow the ball by everyone.
My guess is their coaches threw the changeup even when they didn’t need to, because they knew it would help those players (and countless others) become the best they could be. They also knew one single pitch rarely determines a tournament outcome so they could always come back with something else or change strategies if the changeup didn’t work.
All those young women throwing changeups in the WCWS were given ample opportunities to develop that pitch so it would be ready for when it mattered most.
Hopefully today’s youth coaches were paying attention, and saw how effective the changeup can be when it is called early and often, sometimes a couple of times in a row, even against some of the best hitters in the game.
If you have a pitcher who can throw a changeup, even if it isn’t the greatest in the world right now, take advantage of it and use it. If you let her develop it now I guarantee it will help your team win more games in the long run.
And you might just get the pleasure of watching one of your pitchers throw it on TV someday.











