Quantity as Quality

“Quantity has a quality all its own.”

This IS going to be about coaching (I promise) but I think context is critical when using quotes.

The quote has been attributed to quite a few famous leaders–Stalin, Lenin, Clausewitz, Brezhnev; none actually said it, but a lot of American political/defense analysts cite them. It turns out the quote is actually from the philosopher Walter Benjamin (who was a Marxist…). It becomes popular though circa 1978 and the US DoD in comparing Soviet and US technologies at the height of the Cold War. Though American technology was superior, the question was whether it was good enough to withstand the Soviet 3-1 or 5-1 advantage in quantity and that with enough numbers, quantity overwhelms quality.

I ran across the quote a few weeks ago regarding modern Indo-Pac politics which is something I’m tangentially involved in with professional military education but…once I’ve got a phrase or idea in my head, it’s coming back to coaching. I can’t help it. –Can this phrase apply to coaching?

*Isn’t there value in an outside hitter capable of taking 50+ swings nightly? –Does this suggest the hitter’s able to generate SOMETHING when out of system or worse? –I know in the NBA they talk about shooters with ‘high volume’–the ones who take a ton of shots but not necessarily with the best percentage. The thing is–they find ways to get open to take the shots, the team generates the shots. –Baseball values pitchers who are ‘inning eaters’, guys who can be reasonably effective for extended lengths of time which saves innings from being thrown by other pitchers –Football used to value running backs who could carry 25+ times/game every week.

You see how that works?

So then it made me wonder–is there a competitive advantage in maintaining a larger roster?

I’m not talking about club where development is SUPPOSED to be the primary concern and you HAVE to get your players into tournament games. I am thinking here school and college programs.

The advantage that comes to my mind first is that with a 20-person roster rather than 12, injuries are less likely to affect your practice plans–you’ll have enough for 6v6 even with 3-4 injuries. A larger roster can reduce injuries caused by exhaustion or repetitive motion injuries–it adds rest into practice, presuming you use the roster.

The next advantage I can see would be competition for playing time. On a smaller roster, if you are starting, you know change is harder. There may be someone almost as skilled at a position, but they are needed elsewhere and if there are injuries, you may have more than one person playing out of position regardless–I think this happens with football programs more than any other, by the way. I also think limited rosters have been part of the trend towards positionless basketball. With a larger roster, you have more people that SHOULD be capable of competing for playing time–this then leads to everyone working harder to get better (presuming a coach is WILLING to adjust lineups).

I could be a bit whimsical or silly and note that you win when you score more than the other team–it isn’t a question of how awesome a single score may be. Quantity over quality. After all, in sports, victory is determined based on quantity.

Thoughts? I hope this has caused you to think about program building, tactics, any number of things–maybe even stuff not related to coaching!