Life in the Fastpitch Lane

One of the most common pieces of advice given to fastpitch softball players (and their parents) is to look at what the best players in the world do, and then do that. While there is definitely a lot of value to that advice, especially when you’re early in the learning curve, it also has its limitations.

Basically, if all anyone does is imitate what’s already known, or analyze what people already do, progress stops. Innovation and improvement doesn’t come from seeing what’s already there. It comes from thinking “Is there a better way?” and moving away from the conventional wisdom.

A great (and often-used) example is Dick Fosbury, the high jumper who introduced the “Fosbury Flop.” Back in the 1960s, the best high jumpers in the world used a technique where they would run up to the bar from the side, push off of one leg, and then scissor kick their way over it. All the efforts in the sport were expended trying to figure out ways to improve on that technique a little more in order to get higher.

Well, almost all. Fosbury had the courage to not imitate all the others, but instead try something revolutionary – turning completely around at launch and going over the bar head and neck first. The rest is history. These days, any high jumper at a high competitive level does the Fosbury flop.

The same potential exists in our sport – if you’re willing to ask “why” things are done a certain way instead of just following the crowd. Rather than simply looking at video of what great hitters, pitchers, fielders, etc. do, innovators take that starting point and ask “is that the most optimal way to use your body?”

Innovators ask “what if?” and try something different. It may not always work out, but they’re in good company. Thomas Edison said he made 10,000 light bulbs before he found the one that worked. And that basic design lasted more than 100 years – at least until someone else said “why can’t we make a compact fluorescent bulb instead?

The idea of “what is” versus “what could be” reminds me of the often-quoted study of softball pitchers in the 1996 Olympics by Dr. Shery L. Werner. Many people look at her findings and conclude that what she describes is the correct method of pitching. Yet that wasn’t the purpose of the study.

The purpose of the study was to see what these elite-level pitchers did, and to see what they had in common. That, however, doesn’t say whether what they’re doing is optimal. In order to determine what’s optimal you have to take the same group of pitchers and try any number of alternative techniques to see which ones produce the best results.

For all we know, finishing with the hips at 45 to 52 degrees may not be the best way to finish. Or it might. The only thing we know is that’s what those pitchers did. It would take a lot more experimentation to conclude whether it’s optimal; you’d have to try different methods and measure the results – of course giving each pitcher a sufficient amount of time to master each of the alternative techniques. Truth is, we’ll probably have to wait for androids to be invented before you can run that experiment conclusively.

In the meantime, we need to be more than “monkey see, monkey do.” Don’t be afraid to thoughtfully break the mold now and then to see if going against the crowd rather than blindly following it produces better results.

You may wind up right back where you started. Or you could end up being the next Dick Fosbury. And wouldn’t that look great on a softball coaching resume?

Now it’s your turn. Have you ever gone against the conventional wisdom? If so why, and what were the results?

Back in March I wrote about a different team concept I was doing this summer. In case you don’t feel like following the link, it was called the IOMT Castaways – IOMT standing for Island of Misfit Toys. The team was put together by invitation, and was made up of girls I’d either coached before on a team or who were pitching or hitting students of mine. (Some were both, too.)

The primary credential to be on the team (which led to the name) was having been underrated or under-appreciated on another team. Perhaps it was a school team where they were overlooked for varsity, or not given a chance to compete for their primary position. Perhaps it was a travel team that passed on them, or one that took them and then didn’t play them or constantly criticized them.

Whatever it was, these were essentially players that other coaches didn’t think much of but that I thought could play ball. We also looked hard at the kind of people they were. We wanted not just quality ballplayers but good teammates with good parents. We also made it clear that the goal of this team wasn’t college exposure. It was to give girls who just love playing softball an opportunity to play purely for the love of the game. )Truth is there were a couple of girls I knew who had all those other qualities but were still interested in pursuing college scholarships, so I suggested they play on a team that had that goal.)

In any case, we just finished up the season last Sunday. So how did the experiment go? Were we able to take these “castaways” from other teams and train them up to be competitive, or was it a nice idea that fell apart in the execution?

I’m glad to say it was actually a very successful season. We played a mix of sanctioned tournaments (A, B and open), and finished with a record of 21-14 across seven weekends. In our tournaments we earned one second place finish, two thirds and a consolation championship. Considering I would’ve been happy with any one of those results, to have achieved so much in a single year was outstanding.

Perhaps my favorite story came from one of our players, who knows some of the families in the host organization for one of the tournaments we played in. It was a USSSA A tournament where we took third, and came within a run of going to the championship game. Apparently we were quite the talk of the tournament. Everyone was asking “Who the (heck) are the Castaways, and where did they come from?” Of course, our Florida-like uniforms certainly helped keep the mystery alive.

More importantly, and I think anyone who has ever coached girls can appreciate this, we had no drama. None. There were no hurt feelings, no cliques, no catty remarks behind people’s backs. Our Castaways genuinely liked each, and embraced their differences and the quirks of their teammates. It was one of the happiest teams I’ve ever been around – at least until our last game was over, at which point there were many tears shed for the end of their careers, and the end of all of our time together.

The only regret our whole coaching staff had was that we started it at 18U instead of 14U. We couldn’t help but wonder what we might’ve been able to accomplish with them with a couple more years together. Often your better teams are those with at least a core of players who have been together for a while. Almost everyone on our team knew someone from having played with them before, but it was hardly a familiar group to start. To see them bond they way they did, and most likely make friends for life, was an amazing thing.

So there you have it. Proof that with the right group of players, the Castaways concept works. There are no plans for an IOMT Castaways in 2014. But I’m keeping the organization alive. It’s sort of like the Three Amigos. Whenever another group of players need a positive, supportive atmosphere where they can get an opportunity to show what they can really do, the Castaways will be there for them. And hey, who knows? Maybe a couple of the original Castaways will come back and coach.

As a general rule, I strive to keep myself out on the front end of the softball world. I’m constantly looking for new information and new ways of doing things.

There is one area, however, where I am pretty much “old school” – how I view opponents when we’re playing. Normally I’m a pretty friendly person. But when I’m coaching I tend to be rather, shall we say, focused and intense.

I am a competitor. I always have been. As the Billy Beane character says in the movie Moneyball, I hate losing more than I like winning. So when my team is playing, I’m not particularly interested in meeting new people and making new friends.

In fact, I can’t really understand those who are. I’ve seen plenty of coaches who like to come up and chat as though we’re just hanging out at a bar somewhere watching a game neither of us has a stake in. I’ll respond politely, usually. But I still don’t get it.

When we’re playing I’m not interested in being your friend or chatting about the weather. I’m interested in figuring out how to beat your team and not a whole lot else.

I dunno. Maybe it’s a character flaw. But at this point in my life, and my coaching career, I don’t see it changing.

So what about you coaches? Do you like chatting with the opponents? Or are you more like me and view them as an obstacle to be overcome and dispatched without prejudice?