Playing time: 5 thoughtful and well-executed approaches

In response to my last column, where I listed 25 maxims for coaches about “playing time,” several parents wrote to me with stories of coaches who handle playing time very well, or very poorly. This made me realize it might be helpful to share some examples of thoughtful, well-executed playing-time philosophies I have witnessed during my 12 years as a youth sports parent and coach. So here are five teams or leagues that, regardless of the degree to which they emphasize winning, have really impressed me.

Hockey: Roxbury Latin junior varsity (team). At RL, player development is certainly a priority, but winning in the competitive Independent School League is at least as important. (One of the school’s many traditions is to display the team photos only of squads that earned a winning percentage of at least .500.) Over the four years that my sons played on RL’s JV hockey team, the 10 best players always comprised the top two lines, and the third line’s composition stayed pretty consistent as well. On a team of about 18-19 players, however, that meant there always were a few bench players in limbo.

Typical coaches in this situation descend into rationalizations for never or rarely playing those few players at the end of the bench. (Trust me — I’ve endured many “typical coaches.”) But RL’s coaches masterfully managed playing time with an eye on both winning and team-wide participation. I was amazed at their knack for identifying and seizing opportunities to sub-in bench players at moments that offered these players the greatest chance to be successful and also presented the lowest risk for an opposing goal. There was one game against a big rival that stayed close, and the bench players skated just two short shifts in the first two periods. But they played. I remember another game against an inferior opponent, however, where the bench players were on the ice every other shift, and one of them even scored a hat trick. In the end, RL’s JV coaches consistently achieved an extremely difficult objective, one that takes guts to even try to pull off: giving the bench players the greatest amount of playing time possible, while still attaining the best possible win-loss record for the team.

Baseball: Wayland Blazers (team). My son played on the Blazers, an AAU baseball team assembled through tryouts, for five years (ages 11-15). Winning was a major goal for the Blazers, so batting lineups, defensive positions and pitching rotations prioritized the players’ abilities. However, the Blazers’ head coach always got every player into every game for at least three defensive innings and one at bat (sometimes two). With 12 players on the team, that meant six players (the strongest ones) played the entirety of each game, and six players played half of each game.

Yet even with this semi-egalitarian playing-time philosophy, the team was a wagon. They won multiple tournaments each year, and they finished one season ranked No. 9 nationally. Through it all, the coach gave each player the chance to play a role in the outcome of every game (even the championship games, where the temptation to keep the weakest players on the bench — as many opposing coaches did — must have been substantial). This playing time approach enabled each player to develop significantly as a player, have fun, and feel like an integral member of the team.

Basketball: Tri-Town (league). The top youth basketball players in my town are selected to play on one of our Metro-West travel teams; for everyone else in grades 3-8, there’s Tri-Town. Three of my children played in Tri-Town, which has tryouts for the sole purpose of making equal teams. Two of the league’s stated goals are “to create a competitively friendly environment in which children of varying skill levels have fun with basketball” and “to promote increased self-esteem among our children.” To ensure these goals are accomplished, Tri-Town has a strict “equal playing time” rule, and to help enforce this standard, coaches are provided with substitution templates to plan playing time before the games start. So whether six or nine or 12 players show up for a game, there’s a specific worksheet (where the “clock-math” for a 40-minute game already has been done) that directs coaches when to sub-in and sub-out each player. These substitution templates also keep coaches honest when their competitive juices start flowing in the second half of a close contest.

Tri-Town’s postseason is also distinctively development-focused. Once the regular season is complete, there are two sets of single-elimination playoffs: a tournament for the top four teams, and a tournament for the bottom four teams. Skeptical? One year, I coached the “bottom four champions,” and when the horn sounded at the end of the final game, all my players (each of whom had played an equal number of minutes) celebrated like they’d won the NCAA title. Only in Tri-Town.

Lacrosse: Mass Elite (program). My 11-year-old daughter plays for Mass Elite, a club lacrosse program that selects its players through tryouts. The program has a strong reputation for winning and for player development, and its playing time philosophy (at my daughter’s age level) is the simplest and fairest I have seen. Every three minutes or so, 2-3 players on the sidelines sub-in for 2-3 players on the field, and the players who come out of the game go to the back of the line of subs standing on the sidelines. After hydrating and getting some rest, the subs move quickly to the front of the line and are soon back in the game — often in a different position than before. The coaches follow this playing time philosophy regardless of the importance of the game, showing (through their actions as game managers) that all players are counted on equally, and that it’s important to learn to play every position well. Even with the team’s best players often gulping water on the sidelines during crunch time (because it’s their turn to sit), Mass Elite wins, and wins, and wins. And sometimes they lose, but there are no regrets.

Hockey: Hot Shots (league). Three of my children played in Hot Shots, a youth hockey league for boys and girls ages 8-14. The league is comprised of four equal teams, and the players’ ability levels vary significantly. About 11 players per team show up for each game, and the top five players are assigned to the first line, while the least experienced five players skate on the second line. (Each player takes a turn playing goalie — usually once per season.) During the game, first-liners play against only first-liners, and second-liners play against only second-liners. Every two minutes a buzzer sounds, and the lines quickly switch. During this transition, the referee slings the puck to an empty space on the ice, and play continues unabated.

In addition to ensuring equal (and ample) playing time for everyone, this inspired approach makes the weakest players on a team just as important to the game’s outcome as the strongest players. The first-line players (mostly 12- to 14-year-olds) cheer like crazy from the bench for their second-line teammates (mostly 8- to 10-year-olds), and the camaraderie in the locker room is unparalleled. Hot Shots is pickup hockey with just enough adult involvement to ensure team parity and nonstop, competitive fun.

What do all of these playing time paradigms have in common? A focus on objectives beyond just winning, yes; consideration for the kids’ best interests in the short and long term, yes; but above all, courage, discipline and integrity. Behind every worthy playing time philosophy is a coach who demonstrates courage by prioritizing all players’ self-esteem and personal development (not just the players most crucial to winning), and who evinces the discipline and integrity to design and carry out a playing time system that honors these priorities. Striving to win on the scoreboard is easy. Any bozo can navigate that path. Striving to win on the scoreboard and to allocate meaningful playing time to every team member — that requires a higher-level approach.