Performance incentives


Thoughts on giving players (pitchers for the sake of this topic) “allowance” for performance. For instance maybe giving a player something like $1.00 per strikeout, or say -50 cent per walk. Takes on if we feel thats a good idea to reward/ motivate a kid or a bad idea??


I personally wouldn’t do that, but, just a choice I guess.
I was never into giving rewards for getting good grades either.
The game should be fun enough in my humble opinion.


Strikeouts shouldn’t be a goal either. It takes at least 3 pitches to strike out someone. Rarely would it be with 3 consecutive pitches. Strikeouts build pitch counts in outings. While they are great in certain situations, like with runners in scoring position with less than two outs, they really shouldn’t be the goal. Try to end at bats in fewer than 4 pitches whenever possible. The perfect pitch, some say is strike one, but I say it’s a pitch that gets you an out without runners advancing.

If you want to do something like this, reward WHIP instead. You can figure out how to apply goals and what they should be, depending upon how much money you want to lose :wink:


For pitching, focus should always be on the process and not the outcome. Strikeouts are only necessary in certain situations. Did he recognize those situations did he execute or attempt to execute based on that situation. Never met anybody who needed an outside reward for baseball. If they do, they need to drop baseball, and find something they are passionate about.

I take a completely different view on grades. School is my children’s job. Their only job. Grades indicate their performance and just like me they should be paid when they meet or exceed expectations. Just my point of view.

Good luck,



First off Ted, my son doesn’t “need” any outside reward for baseball pal. This is a topic site so it was a topic to gauge people’s thoughts, if your “thought” was no than that’s fine. Secondly to you and also Paul the strikeout example was just that, an example, it could’ve been for base hits or doubles or homeruns or stolen bases or whatever, basically like a reward, somewhat like what some people give kids for doing chores or work around the house, or for good grades, whatever your reason is for wanting to provide kids a way to earn money (if you want your kids to be able to “earn” money) the basis of this topic was do people feel it’s a good idea or not to make baseball or any sport for that matter one of those ways to “earn” money. It’s funny how all of these so called experts on here find ways to speak down on folks with negative remarks rather than just answering questions with a simple answer like fearsome four did in this one. Not saying your response was exactly one of those but I mean I’ve seen that allot in different topics. Either way thanks for your insight.


Baseball shouldn’t be a chore. It’s for fun. That’s like paying your kid to jump on the trampoline.


My post was not meant to be negative but it is direct. The focus in baseball (and most sports) should be on process not stats. Stats will come and go not necessarily due to a change in the pitcher’s performance level and the ability to compete and perform depends significantly on the competition. Which is why I point out that the attempt to execute certain tasks in certain situations is of greater value. If I were going to find a way for my son to earn money related to baseball, it would be in preparation milestones. Because the reward is further off but the need for motivation is immediate.

I don’t know what motivates your son and made no pretense to know, but my assessment is if a player’s playing performance is motivated by the cash, as asked in your original post, he or she should find something that does not require that reward or motivation.

My view on grades is different and is in direct contrast to fearsome’s. Doesn’t make his view wrong, just a different perspective.

I have seen some of the videos of your son. Looks like he is doing well.

Continued success to you both,



Look up Herzberg’s Two Factory theory. It is a prevailing theory in business and management about what truly motivates people perform well and truly invest in their work. I’m completely paraphrasing, but I’ll summarize his findings:

  1. Money is simply a “hygiene factor.” In the workplace (where pay is expected), increasing someone’s pay does not truly motivate them. The lack of it makes the worker dissatisfied, but an increase does not increase motivation or satisfaction. It does not increase buy-in.

  2. True motivators include sense of importance, responsibility, autonomy, and meaningful challenge.

While I have no research to back up my opinion, most of my friends who were rewarded monetarily for grades and athletic performance were never successful. Their grades were average at best, and they lost interest in sports later in life. I see a lot of parallels between Herzberg’s theory and paying children to perform. Money is not really a motivator, but the introduction of it into the feedback cycle just creates dissatisfaction when it doesn’t materialize. The upside of the incentive simply doesn’t exist.


If I were going to reward my son it would be on effort & hustle, not outcome. That said; I wouldn’t pay for play. I pay plenty already for him to play. My son says he wants to play college ball, should be enough motivation.


“True motivators include sense of importance, responsibility, autonomy, and meaningful challenge.”

Take away the pay and see how well the other factors get those employees into work. :wink:

Really, my guys probably have done so well because of the importance my wife and I have constantly placed on their schoolwork combined with their desire to please us and the obvious intellectual DNA advantage we have provided. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: But the material rewards have been important to them and seem like a just payment for the effort and time they put into the work.

best regards,



His theory treats dissatisfaction and satisfaction as two different scales. I agree with your point that taking away money will lead to dissatisfaction, but the crux of his theory is that using money as the carrot will not increase satisfaction. It is hard to wrap your head around at first, but the dual scale idea is what does it for me.

It’s an easy theory to misunderstand. Call me an idealist, but I think back to all of the goals I have been truly motivated to reach, and money was rarely the stimulus behind that rare feeling of true willingness to sacrifice and reach a goal greater than my current self.


I agree with what you are saying to a great extent. I have also achieved my greatest goals motivated by rewards other than money. However, after delivering results of significant monetary value to the employer, most employees are dissatisfied if a monetary compensation is not forthcoming. The two really can’t be separated for long or the employee finds that monetary compensation somewhere else unless locked in by other factors.

Fun stuff,



When my son started to play the game - T-ball in fact, I volunteered to help. As it turned out, it became more than just volunteering.

Any who… I gave my word of honor that for every game won, I’d buy everyone on the club an ice cream. I also gave my word that if chocolate and vanilla ran out… strawberry was definitely in trouble. After all, a man’s word is his bond, right guys!

Well, game after game we all bellied up to the bar for double scooper, some with sprinkles (jimmies) and some without. At the end of the season one of the little tikes asks me… " Coach, how could you tell who won or not?" I made up some wild story about a commissioner’s office and his stat keepers, or something like that.

Years later I met some of those youngsters. Youngsters who had youngsters of their own… and guess what …they ended up coaching… you guessed it … T-ball. What got me was one of those young men told me about a commissioner’s office that keeps great stats… and how if vanilla and chocolate every ran out … strawberry was definitely in trouble.