Baseball seems to be at a point where there are two “types” of people: those that work on the field and those that work in the training facility. Because of this divide, there seems to be little agreement on what the optimal strategy for an athlete looks like. And while some have begun working to break down this barrier, there are still far too many who refuse. The end result is a mixed message. The players have their field coach, and they have their training coach, both of which are telling them fundamentally different things. The “trainer” thinks it’s all about strength and power and maximizing force, while the “field coach” thinks it’s all about technique and feel and competing. Who should they listen to?
Field Coaches
Field coaches are obsessed with feels and technique and making things look good and smooth. They can often pick out the intricacies of a movement and give the player something specific to work on when that movement is off. This is often through the use of cues, and occasionally through video. The good ones supply these modalities in a way that helps the player. They are often former players who understand the mentality it takes to play everyday, and who understand how to communicate to their athletes throughout a long season (again, the good ones).
Trainers
Trainers are obsessed with speed, power, and numbers. They need objective measurements to prove to their players, and to themselves, that their training is working. Hearing a “different sound off the bat” doesn’t work for them. They need to know a players’ exit velo jumped from 92.4 to 95.6, as well as discern what it was that likely led to that increase. They are often former players who had to work their rear ends off and who, as a result of that, learned to love the cage, the weight room, and pretty much anything else that has to do with physical preparation. To them, if you don’t measure, you’re lazy.
Where They Disagree
The fact that an athlete took his exit velo from 92.4 to 95.6 doesn’t matter to the field coach when the game is 45 minutes out and he just watched his cleanup hitter roll everything over to short. He needs to be able to find whatever little feel or cue will get his hitter back on track for game time so he can ultimately help his team win.
The same little cues and feels are unimportant to the trainer as they often will lead to minuscule, if any, changes in the numbers the athlete/trainer is seeing in the training facility.
These two different perspectives, unfortunately, often lead to no communication at all between field coach and trainer.
Alternative Solution
There is a real need for both trainers and field coaches in the baseball sphere. Both have unique perspectives that provide a benefit for the athlete.
One of the benefits of doing remote training is that I will talk to my athletes about both their training scenarios, as well as their game scenarios. And while I am not physically at the field with them, the way I communicate or approach their pre-game programming, differs from the way I structure their developmental training programs.
For instance, the purpose of pre-game BP is not to build batpseed, even though that may have been the focus of the majority of a hitters’ off-season work. Instead, it’s a time to get a feel, get an approach, and make sure you’ve figured out what you need to think about/focus on that day to execute your best stuff each time you are called upon to do so.
In the same way, trainers and field coaches need to respect the viewpoint and expertise of the other. In fact, they should be working in tandem to find the best way to maximize their athlete.
While a field coach can help optimize what a player has in terms of physical ability, they often don’t have the necessary tools to develop additional ability. The trainer does.
The trainer does not have the expertise to help a hitter understand that slow is smooth and smooth is fast, and that they need that process to be adjustable to the different types of pitchers they’ll face throughout the year. The field coach does.
A Plea for a New Model
Early this spring, I had the coach of an athlete I’d been working with reach out and ask what type of programming he’d been doing, what worked, what didn’t, and what he should know about the athlete before he began his work with him. I was overjoyed.
The coach wasn’t worried about forcing “his way” upon the athlete. He wasn’t worried about looking weak by gathering info from another coach. He simply wanted the best for his athlete. This is how coaching should work. This is how we will optimize the development of our athletes.
Field coach, trainer, head coach, bench coach, pitching coach, etc… it doesn’t matter. We’re all in the same arena. We might have different seats, but we’re all working with the same athlete. Why, then, would we take opposite corners?
We’ll never be on the same page, the same line, and the same word, with any other coach. It may seem, for some, that you’re not even in the same book. But when it comes to working with athletes, it’s not your book that you’re writing. It’s theirs.
If you truly think the coach in the “opposite corner” of you is poison for the athlete, it is your job to communicate that fact and, if needed, help them find another solution. Otherwise, we need to put our own egos aside, look at the situation from outside the arena, see the bigger picture, and help our athletes get better.
Thanks for taking the time to read. If y’all have any questions or comments on this topic, feel free to reach out at brady@dacbaseball.com.
Stay Hungry.
Brady