After chatting with over 100 youth baseball and softball leagues, it’s clear that balanced teams are vital. We’ve broken down these conversations into actionable insights, emphasizing the role evenly-matched teams play in helping a league to grow. Here’s why getting this balance right is fundamental for the development and future of rec leagues.

Why Rec Leagues Need Balanced Teams To Grow

Recreational leagues are losing ground to travel teams. Often, by age 12, the strongest athletes opt for travel ball, typically due to the weak competition in rec leagues. However, this trend can change.

Why do we need balanced teams? If one or two teams always win, it might seem like the weaker teams are the ones missing out. But actually, it’s the strong teams that suffer the most. Strong players need challenging games to improve. When all the top players crowd onto a few teams, it can make the league appear weak. Parents see this and think their kids are better off in travel teams, so they leave. This drains talent from the rec league, weakening it overall.

If the players were balanced fairly, even the best player in the division would need to work hard to win every game. They would face other strong players on opposing teams, pitching against them, fielding against them, and hitting against them. This way, the strongest players are still learning and being competitive in a rec league.

It’s also beneficial for the newest kids. They see what’s achievable and can form friendships with the more experienced players. Winning some games increases their enthusiasm and encourages them to practice more often.

It’s Hard To Make Balanced Teams

Rec league coaches are volunteers. There are some amazing coaches out there, but their desire to win is at odds with making even teams. Given the chance, many coaches will manipulate the system to form the strongest possible team.

We shouldn’t blame the coaches for this; instead, the league needs to understand this dynamic and do its best to prevent them from stacking their team.

How To Make Balanced Teams

1. Hold Evaluations

Always hold evaluations. Let’s emphasize it again: always hold evaluations. There is no reliable method to create balanced teams without them. However, many leagues still attempt to make teams without evaluations. Often, leagues choose not to hold evaluations in the fall, justifying their decision by saying the season should be less competitive.

How do leagues that don’t hold evaluations form teams? It varies; each league has its own method. Some boards assess the players, believing they understand most of them well enough to form fair teams. Others opt to do it completely randomly. Some leagues obtain ratings from the players’ previous year’s coaches and use this data to form teams. Players who haven’t played in the league before are considered first-year players.

We understand that holding evaluations, conducting a draft, and forming teams manually require a lot of work. If the fall season is considered ‘developmental,’ it might seem unnecessary, right? Wrong! If your league is not even keeping score, maintaining balanced teams is essential for the reasons mentioned above. Players show significant improvement when teams are evenly matched, so why skip this during a developmental season?

Evaluations and the draft don’t have to be a lot of work though. Software can now schedule them, assign evaluation numbers, average out the scores, and even draft all the players for you. You just need to spend a few minutes setting it up and you’re good to go! So don’t miss out on balanced teams in the fall; it will significantly improve your league.

Make-Up Evaluations

Once you hold evaluations, you must also plan for makeup sessions. If the main evaluations are on a Saturday, schedule makeup evaluations for a weekday evening. The closer you get to having 100% of your players evaluated, the more balanced the teams will be.

Scoring Categories

Players should be rated across various categories. Typical ones are Infield, Outfield, Throwing, Hitting, Running, Pitching, and Catching. The “Catching” category specifically evaluates catchers, not the general ability to catch.

Evaluating Pitchers and Catchers

Some leagues view evaluations as so daunting and lengthy that they opt not to assess pitchers and catchers. This decision, second only to freezing too many players, significantly contributes to team imbalances, regardless of other factors. Why? At every age level, especially in younger divisions, a strong pitcher can greatly impact a team’s success. Without a good pitcher, a team will struggle to compete, and a season overwhelmed by walks hinders the entire team’s development.

Evaluating and ranking pitchers is crucial. In a ten-team division, ideally, there should be ten top pitchers, one for each team. However, the reality often is that there is a shortage of strong pitchers, leading to a situation where some teams may have a rough time. The best approach to mitigate this is developing more pitchers, although this is a longer-term strategy. Without proper evaluations, making sure that each team gets a strong pitcher becomes nearly impossible.

Coaches often tell pitchers not to evaluate as a pitcher, aiming to draft them later and potentially get two top pitchers. To prevent this, a rule should be established that only pitchers who have been evaluated can pitch during the season. Some leagues enforce a rule where unassessed pitchers can’t pitch in the first six games or in playoffs. This is a good way to allow new pitchers to learn to pitch, while still keeping teams as even as possible. If a pitcher genuinely cannot attend evaluations or makeup sessions, they should be allowed to submit a video of their pitching instead.

Catchers should be evaluated, but we find that not evaluating them does not significantly affect team balance. Unlike with pitchers, preventing other players from learning to catch because of a rule requiring catcher evaluation is counterproductive. Catchers should receive pitches during tryouts, but any player should be allowed to catch throughout the year.

Coach Scoring

In some leagues, coaches are given a paper listing all players for evaluation and are instructed to score them as they see fit. Some coaches use a 1-5 scale, others a 1-10, some use decimals, while some do not. Half of the leagues we’ve talked to stop there. Coaches keep their papers with their notes, then they bring them to draft day to build their team.

This approach is not ideal for several reasons. First, coaches are volunteers; some are new not only to coaching but also to the sport. These coaches may lack the experience needed to accurately evaluate players, putting them at a disadvantage during the draft.

Second, evaluating players is a skill. A coach who was once an experienced player might understand the game well but could be unfamiliar with coaching 8-year-old players. They might evaluate the top players effectively, but struggle to distinguish between average and below-average players, who may all appear similarly weak. However, there are nuances; for instance, some new players can connect with the ball, while others, perhaps with a better swing, can’t. Coaches with more experience at this age level are better at recognizing these subtleties, which can lead to uneven teams.

Third, during the draft, coaches may be sifting through 6-8 pages of scattered scores. This slows down the process of selecting their next pick and increases the likelihood of overlooking good choices due to poor organization. Some coaches spend hours at home transferring their picks into a spreadsheet to draft a better, stronger team. This gives coaches that spend the time an unfair advantage during the draft.

Score Totaling and Ranking

The other half of leagues choose to take a more hands-on approach to address the issues described above with coaches’ scoring. These leagues collect all the scores from the coaches, tally each score for each player in a spreadsheet, and compile a master record with rankings for each player.

As an example, little Grayson is a super star. Coach #1 rated him as follows, with each skill out of 5:

Infield: 5 Outfield: 5 Throwing: 4 Hitting: 5 Running: 4

His total score from Coach #1 is 5 + 5 + 4 + 5 + 4 = 23. Assuming there are six teams in the division, after all six coaches have evaluated him, his scores are as follows: 23 + 22 + 24 + 24 + 22 + 24 = 139. Grayson’s final score is 139 out of a potential 150. The league does this same thing for each player, summing up their scores to create a ranked list. This list, ordered from highest to lowest scores, is then distributed during the draft, ensuring all coaches are working off the same organized sheet.

The mathematically astute among you may have noticed an issue with this method of summing totals. If you take a closer look, there are three categories for defense and only two for offense. In addition to this, many coaches either neglect to score running, or they assign the same score to everyone. What does this mean? It means that your teams will be disproportionately weighted towards defense, with very little consideration for offense.

What’s the solution? Use a weighted average. To avoid dwelling on the math, here’s an example formula you could use for your league:

Round each score to two decimal places to match the three-digit specificity of the sum. Calculate the weighted score for each coach and then average these scores to determine the weighted overall score, which can be used to rank the players. For example, if Grayson’s scores from six coaches are 4.64, 4.43, 4.7, 4.7, 4.43, and 4.7, his average weighted score would be 4.64+4.43+4.7+4.7+4.43+4.7 / 6 ​ =4.60. This score more accurately reflects a player’s contribution to the team than an unweighted sum.

Your next question should be, “Who has time for all this? We don’t get paid!” The answer is, you don’t have to manually handle it. Use software; it automates the entire process for you.

The Problem with Totaling Scores and Creating Rankings

Totaling scores resolves a lot of the issues that rise up when rankings are not made. It provides new coaches with a foundation, preventing them from being at a significant disadvantage. Additionally, it eliminates the need for coaches to sift through pages and pages of random scores, which can otherwise give more organized coaches an unfair advantage.

The problem is some coaches deliberately give good players low ratings, hoping to snag them later in the draft as they will be ranked lower. You might think volunteer coaches wouldn’t be that sneaky, but you’d be wrong. Many coaches do this kind of thing because they all want to pick the best team. So what do leagues do to stop this? A lot will use independent evaluators. But it’s not a perfect fix. Let’s discuss why.

Independent Evaluators - Why It’s Not the Solution

About half of the leagues we surveyed use independent evaluators. These evaluators don’t have a child in the division and are often board members. They are the sole individuals responsible for creating the player rankings mentioned above. While this approach addresses the problem of coaches intentionally underrating players to secure them later in the draft, it also introduces more issues than it solves.

Independent evaluators likely don’t know the players as well as the coaches do. Sometimes, a player might be nervous and not play their best. For instance, seeing just a few plays might not make it clear that Grayson is a top player. Even if he is one of the best, independent evaluators could rank him lower than he should be. Coaches who saw Grayson play last season know he’s great and would probably rate him higher.

There’s also a bigger, more scandalous issue. Coaches sometimes instruct desired players to underperform in evaluations. This tactic is surprisingly common. When only independent evaluators score players, someone who should be in the top 10 could be placed much lower. Coaches are more likely to recognize these players; independent evaluators aren’t. The use of independent evaluators encourages more coaches to tell players to perform poorly because they know these evaluators won’t recognize the players’ true abilities. This manipulation would be less frequent with coaches handling the evaluations and rankings. Due to these problems, we actually recommend against using independent evaluators if the goal is to have balanced teams. What can be done about coaches deliberately entering low scores? Continue reading to discover the most effective solution we have identified.

But there’s another deeper issue with independent evaluators. Coaches will tell players they want on their team to intentionally perform poorly during evaluations. If a player ranks lower, it’s much easier for the coach to pick the player up in a later round. Unfortunately, this happens more often than you might think. If only the independent evaluators are scoring players, a top 10 player can definitely get rated in the lower half.

Because of these issues, we actually recommend AGAINST independent evaluators for more even teams. So what should be done about coaches purposely putting in low scores? The answer is to create rankings with coaches scores, and do a blind draft, without the coaches present. More on that later.

2. Minimize Frozen Players

Before the draft takes place, most leagues allow coaches to freeze (reserve on their team) a predetermined number of players. Typically, this is done to enable the coach to select an assistant coach with whom they work well.

We’ve found that the policy on freezing players is the biggest factor in whether a league has evenly matched teams or is dominated by a few super teams. On average, leagues tend to allow freezing up to two players, in addition to the coach’s child.

However, we’ve encountered extreme cases where leagues allow up to six players to be frozen – effectively half the team! This is fortunately rare; among the 100 leagues we’ve talked to, we’ve seen this only once. Examining such an extreme case is beneficial for understanding the potential issues with freezing players and exploring the reasons why a league might adopt such an extreme policy.

The Downside of Allowing Multiple Frozen Players

The idea behind allowing upwards of six frozen players is that a coach can effectively mentor kids over many years of playing. It enhances the coach’s ability to support the player, and many players rely on having the same coach.

Although the idea is well-intentioned, the problem lies in the fact that it ultimately disadvantages those players by reducing competition throughout the season. Coaches who appear to have good intentions may not be helping these kids as much as they believe. Moreover, it detracts from the overall program. If coaches feel the need for such a situation, then a travel team is the right place to be. Having the same coach every season simply does not work for a recreational program. Teams must be balanced, and this prevents that from happening.

Leagues that allow the freezing of a lot of players might also justify it by arguing that it’s fair, as teams with many frozen players would miss the early rounds of the draft to compensate. However, let’s delve into why this reasoning falls short.

Consider Coach John, he has six frozen players on his softball team, all first-round picks. This scenario is plausible. All-star teams allow coaches to work with the league’s top players, potentially leading to a situation where a coach freezes the top six players on the team – likely the top six players in the league.

Assuming there are 10 teams in the league, the first draft round is for the top 10 players. Coach John already has a first-round pick, so he doesn’t get a pick in that first round. Round two arrives, and since all 6 of Coach John’s players are first-round picks, he skips rounds 2-6 as well.

Now, the issue arises with the distinction between first-round and second-round picks. First-round picks comprise the top 10 players, while second-round picks include players ranked 11-20. The third round consists of players ranked 21-30, and so on until the sixth round, which includes players ranked 51-60.

Coach John didn’t have to select a player ranked 51-60; he got 6 players ranked 1-10. This doesn’t just mean Coach John’s team is significantly better; it also implies that 5 other teams missed out on genuine first-round picks altogether!

That’s an extreme case of six freezes, but the same problem exists with two or even one freeze. Most of the time, coaches are looking for a player, not an assistant coach. If the player is exceptional, most coaches will happily take that player’s parent as an assistant coach.

Even a Few Frozen Players Make Uneven Teams

Imagine a different scenario where a league allows just a single freeze in addition to the coach’s child. Coach John is coaching a 12-year-old player-pitched rec baseball team. John’s son is a superstar pitcher, number one in the league. Coach John knows his son can’t pitch to every batter during the season because of pitch count rules, so getting a strong second pitcher would make his team unstoppable.

He remembers the second-best pitcher from last season and approaches that player’s dad to ask him to join his team. The dad agrees, knowing that together with Coach John’s son, they’ll dominate—and he’s right.

The issue isn’t just that this team will dominate; it’s that another team is missing out on the second-best pitcher in the league. One team could end up with a pitcher who walks nearly every batter as their top choice. In addition, the impact of the second-best pitcher is also diminished. Fewer players in the league will get to hit against him, resulting in fewer opportunities for players on other teams to develop and face strong pitching.

The Solution

So what’s the correct alternative? No freezes. The coach should only be guaranteed their child on the team, with all other players drafted like anyone else. But what about the assistant coach, you might ask? As we’ve observed, coaches aren’t primarily looking for an assistant coach with their freezes; they’re looking for a standout player. However, if the league feels strongly about it, one freeze will not likely upset the balance of team competitiveness, except in the case of pitchers. There should be a rule preventing any team from having two pitchers who are both ranked in the first round for pitching.

3. The Draft

About 80% of leagues use a snake draft. In this system, each team draws a random number to determine the draft order. The team that draws number 1 picks first, number 2 picks second, and so on. The coach who picks last in the first round picks first in the second round, hence the term “snake” draft. This means the last to pick in the first round gets the lowest-ranked first-round pick and the highest-ranked second-round pick.

Position Specific Rounds

Some leagues have special rounds for pitchers, and sometimes catchers too. For example, in the first round, teams can only pick players who are pitchers. This setup works well. Without it, most coaches would pick a pitcher first anyway. But it helps stop new coaches from making big mistakes. The best way we’ve seen it done goes like this:

Round 1: Pitcher Round 2: Catcher Round 3: Utility Round 4: Pitcher Round 5+: Utility

Round 3 coaches should be prevented from choosing a pitcher. Why does this setup work? Ideally, every team needs at least two good pitchers and one catcher. Sure, you can pick more pitchers and catchers in the utility rounds, but the best ones are usually gone early, and that’s okay. This prevents coaches from making big mistakes. Why not have the second pitcher round right after the first? Here’s why: if you pick first overall, you’d pick last for a catcher. Then, when it’s your turn again, you’d be first for the second pitcher. Getting the first pick for both pitchers isn’t fair. So, you pick first for a pitcher, last for a catcher, and then last for your second pitcher. This makes it more balanced.

What happens if a team has the best pitcher but the worst catcher? We don’t want the top pitcher getting frustrated with missed catches, which could push them to leave for travel ball – not great for the league. In most youth leagues, any strong player can step in as catcher without dropping the ball. If a team is stuck, coaches often train a talented player, who’s never caught before, to take on the role. This actually helps the league because it means more solid catchers in the future. But if the league makes a rule that only players who are evaluated as catchers can catch, that’s going to cause problems. It’s not good for the top pitchers and ends up reducing the number of catchers over time. That’s why we think it’s a bad idea to have such a rule.

Draft Round Order Based on Scores

Some leagues determine the draft order based on the total scores of each team. If there are six teams and each team has “frozen” players (ideally only their child), an example set of starting scores would be:

Team 1: 4.6 Team 2: 2.87 Team 3: 3.45 Team 4: 4.24 Team 5: 4.89 Team 6: 3.75

In this example, the draft order would be Team 2, Team 3, Team 6, Team 4, Team 1, and then Team 5. This method requires more effort during the draft, with the idea being that the team needing the best players should pick first, rather than selecting randomly. The order changes each round; if your team has the lowest score in round two, you pick first. However, there are some drawbacks to this approach.

First, consider the type of player: pitcher, catcher, or utility. With this a point determined draft order, leagues seldom have position-specific rounds. If there are position-specific rounds, the draft order should be based on the total points relevant to that position. For example, if Team 1 has 24 points but doesn’t have a pitcher, they would score 0 for the first round and thus pick first. This results in them securing both a top pitcher and a top utility player. Therefore, position-specific rounds are generally not considered in this system, which often lead to less balanced teams.

Second, beyond the first round, there isn’t much advantage to a snake draft. Theoretically, the team picking last in a snake draft should already have the lowest score. If that’s not the case, it might indicate that scores were manipulated, and coaches are aware of this, choosing players ranked lower as a result. This situation could allow a coach with a lower score to pick first in the next round while still having better players. The snake draft simplifies this issue, which is why we recommend sticking with it.

Players Who Didn’t Evaluate - Hat Picks

Even though we aim for 100% attendance at evaluations, some players will inevitably miss them. Often, leagues assign these no-show players to teams randomly at the draft’s end, known as “Hat picks.” For instance, in round 11, if there are 12 players who didn’t attend evaluations, the next team up gets a random player from these 12. This method is about as fair as it can get. However, just because a player missed evaluations doesn’t mean coaches don’t know the player. If a team gets lucky and picks a strong player in the last round through a hat pick, it can lead to unbalanced teams.

Is there a solution? Yes, before the draft, coaches should discuss all potential hat picks collectively. If a coach is familiar with a player, they should share their insights, and all coaches should agree on a draft round for that player. For example, if a player is outstanding and plays in a travel league, they might be designated as a first or second-round pick. If everyone agrees, this player enters the regular draft but can only be selected in the agreed-upon round or later, not earlier.

If no one really knows the player, they are likely new to the league. In such cases, assigning these “Hat picks” in the later rounds is usually the fairest way to include them.

Blind Draft - The Ideal

Every method we’ve suggested has its issues. Independent evaluators might not be familiar with the players, while coaches evaluating on their own could manipulate their scores. Coaches who are better at spotting talent tend to form stronger teams. No system is flawless. However, the blind draft, used by only a few leagues, stands out as the best option for creating balanced teams.

What is a blind draft? It’s a process where all player scores are collected and rankings established. Then, in an unbiased manner, the board drafts teams without the coaches being present. In the pitching round, pitchers are ranked and drafted first, followed by catchers, and then utility players. The drafting continues in a snake format to form the teams. With software this entire process can even be automated. Leagues can conduct evaluations and then, on the same night, press a button to form all teams in the fairest manner possible.

Why choose an auto draft? It solves a lot of issues. You don’t need independent evaluators, which helps because coaches usually know the players better. With an auto draft, there’s no point in a player doing poorly on purpose since it won’t help any coach get them earlier in the draft. This means you can trust the coaches’ rankings more. Also, you don’t need to find independent evaluators to evaluate all day. It’s a win-win situation, and it’s tough to cheat the system.

If a blind draft is so effective, why don’t most leagues use it? We’ve found three main arguments against it. First, there’s concern among board members about accusations of bias, with fears they might favor their friends when forming teams. However, leagues that use auto drafting often have procedures to prevent this issue. They involve multiple people in the process and follow strict protocols during the draft.

Second, the board might not collect evaluation sheets or rank players because it used to be a time-consuming process. However, with current software, this task is much simpler, so this reason should no longer be valid.

Finally, the main reason leagues don’t auto draft is that coaches enjoy the drafting process. Winning the draft feels as good as winning games, and board members are often coaches too; they don’t want to lose this aspect of the league. But this is unfortunate because it’s not what’s best for the players. We should focus on the players’ experience.

So leagues, let’s do better.

Summary

Long post right? Here’s a quick breakdown:

1. Hold evaluations
2. Gather evaluation ratings and make player rankings
3. Minimize player freezes as much as possible (ideally only the coaches child)
4. Use a snake draft
5. Use position specific rounds
6. Discuss players that didn’t show up to evaluations and avoid hat picks if possible
7. Have a blind draft without coaches present

Make it easy with Bravara

If this seems overwhelming, don’t worry. Previously, leagues had to assign evaluation numbers to players, email them their evaluation times, print out hundreds of pages of evaluation sheets, find independent evaluators, invite coaches, spend countless hours digitizing evaluations for ranking, print hundreds of ranking sheets for the draft, conduct long and often argumentative drafts with coaches, and possibly still end up with uneven teams.

That’s a lot of work, but leagues don’t have to go through that anymore. With Bravara, players automatically receive evaluation numbers and times, and are invited to evaluation day. Coaches can score using their phones instead of paper, allowing teams to be formed minutes after evaluations finish with just a click. Players can even find out which team they’re on the same day as evaluations.

If leagues still prefer coach-led drafting, that’s still possible, but Bravara streamlines the process. Coach drafts become quicker and less contentious because all the data is immediately accessible and well-organized after evaluations.

It’s a huge win for the league. Try it out, we’d love to know what you think.