College coaches are consistently posed with a problem in fall baseball. Given limited time to assess a team and identify how to construct the possible on field product, coaching staffs are taxed with the uphill battle of deciding how to create the best possible environment to evaluate talent and get the team game ready come spring time. I have been a part of teams that run the fall on both ends of the spectrum. Some play absolutely as much as possible. Others may play a total of 5 intra-squad games the entire fall. Neither is necessarily wrong, but when the goal is to create the best possible on-field product, I know there is a better way.
When last spring afforded me some time to get creative for a moment, I came up with what I suspect is an entirely new approach to the traditional college fall baseball schedule. It is a bit of a hybrid model that I believe provides a “best of both worlds” scenario.
But first, a few caveats: I believe my proposed hybrid model works best with a group like ours, not too many new freshmen, an established group of team leaders, and a great deal of returning players with experience. My only regret is that we will not get to fully implement the approach this year due to our school’s phased return plan for students.
The first step to implement this hybrid developmental model in the fall is to meet with all members of your performance and coaching staff to divide the players into four groups: a hitting development group, a hitting competition group, a pitching development group, and a pitching competition group. I recommend dividing players into groups based on perceived proficiency with mechanics and on-field performance metrics. With that in mind, it should be the goal for hitters to move from the hitting development group to the competition group and for pitchers to move from the competition group to the developmental group. There is no set number that needs to be in each group.
The reason for this pattern of targeted movement relates back to what I consider to be the stages of competency and what will best serve the team. I am not suggesting that division of talent and pattern of movement would be the best option for other levels of baseball, but in college, coaches operate with two overarching objectives. At a macro level, a coach’s job primarily depends on winning ball games. Secondarily, I believe most coaches strive to help players improve from the time they enter campus as a first year student to the time they leave as a senior. It is this hierarchy that shifts my model for the fall from being 100% focused on player development. The rationale for my model is as follows:
Pitchers new to the program first need to demonstrate whether they can get guys out with what they have, which is why they are placed in the pitching competition group. We recruited them for a reason, so we want to give them a chance to compete against hitters and showcase what they can do and how we can potentially use them in our rotation or bullpen. Once a pitcher proves that they can get outs, or for that matter, they can’t with what they have, it is time to improve their metrics, and move them into the pitching development group. This is where we may start on a “velocity program,” or focus on changing the break or movement of a specific pitch. After some time in the development group in which they’ve demonstrated improvement on whatever metrics were identified, pitchers can then be transferred back into the competition group to assess whether they can carry over improvements they’ve made in their side work to game competition. This iterative process enables pitchers to focus solely on improvement when they are in the development group, without any added pressure of getting guys out. Instead, they can carry those improvements to game type situations once they move back into the competition group.
When we look at hitting, we can quickly identify if a hitter is able to not just compete, but succeed at the collegiate level. Consequently, if we identify a major flaw that is holding a hitter back on the field, we should fix it before we ever get into competition. As a result, almost every new hitter and unproven returners will start in the development group. The goal is to get hitters to the point where they are proficient enough to take their skills to the field and test them against as much competition as possible.
Due to the fluidity within the process, it is best to gather all possible staff members with any influence on on-field performance. Each set of eyes may offer a different insight as to what development variable is most important for a specific player. With additional viewpoints taken into account in the placement and reassessment processes, individual player needs will remain front and center. Additionally, assessments will occur constantly, so there is no official reassessment day. At any point in time a player can be transferred from one group to another. More eyes and an objective assessment will allow players to be placed in the group most appropriate to aid in their development.
As briefly hinted at in previous paragraphs, I imagine these groups to operate with some fluidity. A player might be in their initial group for just a week before proving what we need to see as a staff to move into the other group. On the other hand, a player could remain in one group the entire fall. I should also mention that staying in one group or “moving down” should never be seen as bad or feel like a demotion. Sometimes we may need to refine something with hitters after noticing a glitch or hole in their “competition” swings. We may have a pitcher who threw limited innings throughout his career, and we just need to see what he can do in as many game situations as possible, no matter how successful he is in those outings. These types of scenarios are endless, but before our plans changed with the school’s phased student return protocol, I continually stressed that players should never feel concerned when moved from one group to another. The move was purely objective.
In regards to what the groups actually do, the competition groups aren’t left on their own to fend for themselves and the developmental groups don’t have their hands held the entire way. Rather, the labels simply best depict where most of their time will be spent. The goal for competition guys, in our eyes, is to be in a game-like scenario at least two days per week for the pitchers and around four times per week for hitters. For the developmental groups, the plan was to compete about one time per week. Given those breakdowns, almost all high intent work for the competition groups will be in-game scenarios, whereas high intent work for the development group will mostly be in a drill setting or in a more controlled environment.
In most cases, competition will be live at bats for both hitters and pitchers, but it can include anything that puts both groups in high stress, low control environments. This can include tracked bullpens, simulated games, fives (our hard hit ball game), or various pitch/scenario execution games. I will be the first to tell you that the competition group will not come with a lot of frills, instruction or hand holding; however, the analytical component will be huge with video analysis and number crunching.
In contrast, work for the development group will be considerably more deliberate. As stated earlier, this is where true personalization is taken into account. Whether it is improving swing plane efficiency, focusing on bat speed that doesn’t translate to games, or one of a host of other possible mechanical or physical issues, hitters will work within their own staff designed plan to progress towards the competition group. Each pitcher will work with the staff to pinpoint the exact piece of the individual’s game that he wishes to improve, and a plan will be designed around it. Through pitch design sessions and velocity phased on-ramping, pitchers will work meticulously on a few, highly specific details of their game.
As you can see, there are a lot of variables that go into this model, which is why rolling it out without a full team on campus poses some challenges. The most important factors to keep in mind if you wish to adopt a similar model are as follows:
1) Create an objective assessment process to determine how you will group and move players throughout the season,
2) Include all your coaches and any staff members (e.g. athletic trainers and strength & conditioning staff) to assess player needs and create development plans,
3) Remember that players will take their cues from you. Exercise patience throughout the fall to help players buy in to this new fall model, especially when transitioning between groups.
With this hybrid model, I believe fall baseball at the collegiate level can be completely revolutionized. By mixing competition and development, players can receive the best of both worlds. They will be ready for the coming season, as well as train toward the metrics most closely examined by scouts. The fluidity within the model allows for more individualization, while still putting the team’s needs first. If you would like to discuss this model or any ideas you may have, please feel free to reach out.
Thanks,
Adam Moreau, MBA, CSCS
Director of Player Development and Recruiting Coordinator
Eckerd College
419-250-7243
Comments