Age vs Class Year

That advantage will go away when everyone else catches up.   

Florida State Fan posted:

That advantage will go away when everyone else catches up.   

That player will have a top D1 scholorship before that advantage goes away!

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

and unfortunately some of those who committed as sophomores will end up playing for a different team, other than their initial commitment, once that happens.

I started Kindergarten as a 4 year old (mid-September birthday). My son, who starts college next month, will have his 18th birthday a week or so before classes start. 

My son was always a very good player, but the leap that he made this past winter and spring, would have put him at a much better program if he was a 2018 instead of the 2017 that he is. I'm speaking about both academics and athletics as he needed an extra year for those academics (junior and senior year grades were a 180 from his first 2 years).  As a result, his core GPA was too low (2.38) for anyone to take a risk on him. After senior year that core moved up to 2.88. Without freshman year he would have been a 3.0+.

From what I've seen, some of these kids are starting college at 20 now. And some of them reached their peak as 17 year old freshmen and sophomores when they were recruited. Next thing you know, they're at another school because they aren't the best anymore. 

All of this aside, I've ALWAYS preached to my son that your #1 competitor is you. That you must work to make yourself a better "you" on a daily basis. In every part of your life. So forget the age difference, work hard and go get what you want in life. 

CaCO3Girl posted:

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

I'm not talking about kids who aren't talented, that should be a given. Are you saying that a kid throwing 88 as a freshman doesn't stand out more than a kid throwing 88 as a sophomore? If he didn't PG wouldn't be tweeting about him. You better be throwing 90+ as a 2019 to see your name in a PG tweet, especially at the WWBA!

Texas 2 Sons posted:

I have a June birthday and graduated when I was 17. In my day the only kids who were in your class that were a year older, were the ones who had failed. Now a days there are 17yr old sophomores everywhere.

When did it become necessary to hold your kid back to give them an advantage in sports? 1st it was "summer birthdays", that's why they're held back. Gradually the acceptable cutoff has moved up every year. This past draft saw a Texas HS pitcher drafted in the 4th round, he had turned 19 in January.  At what point does it go from being acceptable to deplorable..as long as they graduate before they turn 20?

As a father of a 2019 who turned 16 a little more than a month ago, it's extremely frustrating to see these kids promoted and celebrated. I got a tweet just yesterday from PG about a 2020 pitcher who was throwing 88 and how he's ranked in the top 20 in his class. So I looked the kid up, and of course he's 5 months older than my 2019. Do you know where he would be ranked if he was truly playing with his class as a 2019..he wouldn't be ranked at all! So at what point does this get called what it really is..cheating! To me it's no different than a player using PED's to get an advantage over his competition. Being a year+ older, bigger, stronger, more mature is a big advantage!

Tex, many are making the decision to hold their kids back.  Certainly not the majority.  Some are doing so mostly with athletics in mind, some with academic or social aspects in mind.  There can be significant pitfalls to making that decision.  You can search many threads here on that topic.  For some, it is the right thing.  For others, not so much. That said, it is not cheating (and, no, we did not hold any of our kids back - in fact two were like you and faced the other end of the spectrum, always being the youngest).  Many kids are a year older and stronger just based on their birth date.  Do you consider that no different than a player using PED's?

Most HS federations have age limits.  Can a player be a year, maybe close to two, older than most of his peers based on birth date and whether or not held back?  Yes.  Can it be an advantage at that time?  Yes.  So can size, speed, a good arm, baseball smarts, natural ability to barrel the ball, desire, work ethic, right situation, good coaching, good instruction, good home situation, grades, etc., etc.  

At some point, your son will just have to overcome all obstacles, take advantage of his own strengths and beat out all the others, no matter what strengths and advantages they may have.  Control what you can control.  Focus on being the best you can be.  Everything else is just noise.

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

I'm not talking about kids who aren't talented, that should be a given. Are you saying that a kid throwing 88 as a freshman doesn't stand out more than a kid throwing 88 as a sophomore? If he didn't PG wouldn't be tweeting about him. You better be throwing 90+ as a 2019 to see your name in a PG tweet, especially at the WWBA!

There's no question that it helps -- that's why parents do it!! LOL 

To each his own. I wouldn't do it, but I'm not in a position to judge another family's situation. That said, it does surprise me that the various scouting services (like PG) don't take into account age more. I mean, maybe they do, but it sure doesn't seem like it. This is a representation of skill development vs age that was published awhile ago.

If it's not cheating then someone owes an apology to Danny Almonte and his teammates!

That's why I like the fact that USA Baseball follows the International Age Guidelines. If you want to be on the 16U team you have to have been born in 2001. To me it takes away that advantage that a lot of kids have. It then becomes about talent for the most part.

This graph can be used in many ways. If you look at it from Right to Left, it can illustrate my energy level after lunch!   

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

I'm not talking about kids who aren't talented, that should be a given. Are you saying that a kid throwing 88 as a freshman doesn't stand out more than a kid throwing 88 as a sophomore? If he didn't PG wouldn't be tweeting about him. You better be throwing 90+ as a 2019 to see your name in a PG tweet, especially at the WWBA!

Play out your scenario.  Kid X is throwing 88 as a freshman, he gets comitted to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Kid Y is throwing 88 as a sophomore and gets committed to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Whats the problem?

No sex between Sept - Dec

Texas 2 Sons posted:

If it's not cheating then someone owes an apology to Danny Almonte and his teammates!

That's why I like the fact that USA Baseball follows the International Age Guidelines. If you want to be on the 16U team you have to have been born in 2001. To me it takes away that advantage that a lot of kids have. It then becomes about talent for the most part.

Come on.  Really?   Almonte clearly broke the rules.  Allowable age was 12, he was 14.  Things were intentionally hidden.    

As I said, HS federations have age limits and for most, holding back a year does not put them outside of the legal allowable age.  To use that comparison is, to say the least, a huge stretch.

It's not cheating, IMHO, for the simple reason that the rules allow it. For example, in California you can participate in high school sports so long as you don't turn 19 on or before June 15th of the summer before your senior year. In other words, you can be 19 your senior year, you can't be 20. There is a well-known basketball player in SoCal who will turn 20 about June 20th -- a few weeks after he graduates high school. It's not cheating -- it is within the rules. 

Texas 2 Sons posted:

If it's not cheating then someone owes an apology to Danny Almonte and his teammates!

That's why I like the fact that USA Baseball follows the International Age Guidelines. If you want to be on the 16U team you have to have been born in 2001. To me it takes away that advantage that a lot of kids have. It then becomes about talent for the most part.

I have not looked but I would bet that about 75% of USA Baseball players are born from January-April.  The fact of the matter is that if a player wants to truly excel, he should be dominating his own age & very competitive vs. older players. If you are going to play Varsity as a Freshman or Sophomore you will compete against older players. Same goes for College, same for Pro Ball. 

CaCO3Girl posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

I'm not talking about kids who aren't talented, that should be a given. Are you saying that a kid throwing 88 as a freshman doesn't stand out more than a kid throwing 88 as a sophomore? If he didn't PG wouldn't be tweeting about him. You better be throwing 90+ as a 2019 to see your name in a PG tweet, especially at the WWBA!

Play out your scenario.  Kid X is throwing 88 as a freshman, he gets comitted to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Kid Y is throwing 88 as a sophomore and gets committed to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Whats the problem?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the higher ranked the kid is, the more scholarship dollars he will command, and also the higher-level program he will be offered by. If Kid X gets 75% and Kid Y gets 35% there are some very tangible consequences.

Texas 2 Sons posted:

I have a June birthday and graduated when I was 17. In my day the only kids who were in your class that were a year older, were the ones who had failed. Now a days there are 17yr old sophomores everywhere.

When did it become necessary to hold your kid back to give them an advantage in sports? 1st it was "summer birthdays", that's why they're held back. Gradually the acceptable cutoff has moved up every year. This past draft saw a Texas HS pitcher drafted in the 4th round, he had turned 19 in January.  At what point does it go from being acceptable to deplorable..as long as they graduate before they turn 20?

As a father of a 2019 who turned 16 a little more than a month ago, it's extremely frustrating to see these kids promoted and celebrated. I got a tweet just yesterday from PG about a 2020 pitcher who was throwing 88 and how he's ranked in the top 20 in his class. So I looked the kid up, and of course he's 5 months older than my 2019. Do you know where he would be ranked if he was truly playing with his class as a 2019..he wouldn't be ranked at all! So at what point does this get called what it really is..cheating! To me it's no different than a player using PED's to get an advantage over his competition. Being a year+ older, bigger, stronger, more mature is a big advantage!

If it matters that much you should have had your kids in the fall right after the school entry deadline. Both my kids were seventeen on graduation day. It didn't stop them athletically. 

They were the last to grow. As smaller kids they practiced hard to be among the best athletes. The game got a lot less challenging when they grew.

You can't control when other kids are born and when they enter school. The number one point on this board is don't waste time worrying about what you can't control. Once a kid turns twenty he's ineligible for public school high school sports.

In travel ball a kid has to play their age or higher. It's where most players are discovered. Once conquering the size and speed of the 60/90 field (elite 14u is a fast game) a kid should be playing up as far as his talent allows.

2019Dad posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

I'm not talking about kids who aren't talented, that should be a given. Are you saying that a kid throwing 88 as a freshman doesn't stand out more than a kid throwing 88 as a sophomore? If he didn't PG wouldn't be tweeting about him. You better be throwing 90+ as a 2019 to see your name in a PG tweet, especially at the WWBA!

Play out your scenario.  Kid X is throwing 88 as a freshman, he gets comitted to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Kid Y is throwing 88 as a sophomore and gets committed to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Whats the problem?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the higher ranked the kid is, the more scholarship dollars he will command, and also the higher-level program he will be offered by. If Kid X gets 75% and Kid Y gets 35% there are some very tangible consequences.

Well, we're getting away from the main point here, IMO, but...

If a D1 school is considering offering 75% or more to a pitcher, they are more than likely going to do their homework and become aware that he has been held back a year.  The possible negative connotations are that he has less upside and "why was he held back" questions can arise.  

Also, if a sophomore is at 88, I think his offer is likely more than 35%   

That said, 2019, not completely discounting your point.

2019Dad posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

I'm not talking about kids who aren't talented, that should be a given. Are you saying that a kid throwing 88 as a freshman doesn't stand out more than a kid throwing 88 as a sophomore? If he didn't PG wouldn't be tweeting about him. You better be throwing 90+ as a 2019 to see your name in a PG tweet, especially at the WWBA!

Play out your scenario.  Kid X is throwing 88 as a freshman, he gets comitted to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Kid Y is throwing 88 as a sophomore and gets committed to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Whats the problem?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the higher ranked the kid is, the more scholarship dollars he will command, and also the higher-level program he will be offered by. If Kid X gets 75% and Kid Y gets 35% there are some very tangible consequences.

All things baseball wise being equal, Kid X will have more opportunities placed before him than Kid Y. They will have 2 different trajectories without a doubt. 

My son was a September birthday. I sent my son to school because he was ready. I did not know anything about holding him back because of sports.  No one in my family ever played at a competitive level. He was ready to go. It was what I thought was best for my child.  When he was a senior, many of the Juniors were older. He still got the playing time. Many of those never played in college. My son did. Not at the D1 level.  

If others are making different decisions for their children that is there business. Do what is best for yours. There is more to life than baseball. 

Chase the D1 scholarship, there is nothing wrong with it. We did, it just did not work out. But I am very happy with where he went to school and how he turned out. Baseball is still a very important part of his life. Life is too short to worry about missed opportunities. 

Make a plan, follow it and he will end up where he should. If he is throwing 88 as a sophomore, and still progressing, I am sure he will get plenty of opportunities, whether PG tweets about him or not. 

Not everyone is dealt the same hand, make the most of yours. 

cabbagedad posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

If it's not cheating then someone owes an apology to Danny Almonte and his teammates!

That's why I like the fact that USA Baseball follows the International Age Guidelines. If you want to be on the 16U team you have to have been born in 2001. To me it takes away that advantage that a lot of kids have. It then becomes about talent for the most part.

Come on.  Really?   Almonte clearly broke the rules.  Allowable age was 12, he was 14.  Things were intentionally hidden.    

As I said, HS federations have age limits and for most, holding back a year does not put them outside of the legal allowable age.  To use that comparison is, to say the least, a huge stretch.

Almonte was 14, more than likely several of the players he faced were 13. So that would make him 1 year older. The scenario isn't any different. We might not be talking about the letter of the law since there isn't one as you've stated, but we're definitely talking about the Spirit of the law.

Texas 2 Sons posted:

If it's not cheating then someone owes an apology to Danny Almonte and his teammates!

That's why I like the fact that USA Baseball follows the International Age Guidelines. If you want to be on the 16U team you have to have been born in 2001. To me it takes away that advantage that a lot of kids have. It then becomes about talent for the most part.

But why is that different? A kid born in January of 2001 is still almost a full year older than a kid born in December of 2001. Isn't that an advantage? My son will be 18 in September and I can definitely tell the difference between him and his best friend, who just turned 17. You have to succeed no matter when your birthday is and honestly, my son has been the leading pitcher on our varsity since he was a freshman, despite being two or three years younger than the seniors.

Texas 2 Sons posted:

2019Dad posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

I'm not talking about kids who aren't talented, that should be a given. Are you saying that a kid throwing 88 as a freshman doesn't stand out more than a kid throwing 88 as a sophomore? If he didn't PG wouldn't be tweeting about him. You better be throwing 90+ as a 2019 to see your name in a PG tweet, especially at the WWBA!

Play out your scenario.  Kid X is throwing 88 as a freshman, he gets comitted to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Kid Y is throwing 88 as a sophomore and gets committed to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Whats the problem?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the higher ranked the kid is, the more scholarship dollars he will command, and also the higher-level program he will be offered by. If Kid X gets 75% and Kid Y gets 35% there are some very tangible consequences.

All things baseball wise being equal, Kid X will have more opportunities placed before him than Kid Y. They will have 2 different trajectories without a doubt. 

 

Well, Tex, I'll just leave you with a few final thoughts...

In nearly 50 consecutive years of organized baseball,

1.  I have seen it play out a thousand times otherwise.

2.  I have never seen two kids with all things baseball wise being equal.

Texas 2 Sons posted:

cabbagedad posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

If it's not cheating then someone owes an apology to Danny Almonte and his teammates!

That's why I like the fact that USA Baseball follows the International Age Guidelines. If you want to be on the 16U team you have to have been born in 2001. To me it takes away that advantage that a lot of kids have. It then becomes about talent for the most part.

Come on.  Really?   Almonte clearly broke the rules.  Allowable age was 12, he was 14.  Things were intentionally hidden.    

As I said, HS federations have age limits and for most, holding back a year does not put them outside of the legal allowable age.  To use that comparison is, to say the least, a huge stretch.

Almonte was 14, more than likely several of the players he faced were 13. So that would make him 1 year older. The scenario isn't any different. We might not be talking about the letter of the law since there isn't one as you've stated, but we're definitely talking about the Spirit of the law.

OK, I lied...  Not quitting on you yet.  

I just remembered and looked up one of your previous posts in another thread.  PLEASE, go back through that thread, then come back and read thru this one with an open mind, listening carefully to what others are trying to convey.  

It can help you in your walk with your oldest son and then with your next son.  It can help you enjoy these years more than you are now.  PLEASE, allow yourself to live better with your kids now by learning from the mistakes others have made before you.  I'm a stranger to you and you to me.  But, I am convinced that you can improve your family dynamics tremendously by a slight adjustment of focus at this point in time.

I think we've all been there - caught up in the heat of the battle and in need of some perspective.

Texas 2 Sons posted:

2019Dad posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

I'm not talking about kids who aren't talented, that should be a given. Are you saying that a kid throwing 88 as a freshman doesn't stand out more than a kid throwing 88 as a sophomore? If he didn't PG wouldn't be tweeting about him. You better be throwing 90+ as a 2019 to see your name in a PG tweet, especially at the WWBA!

Play out your scenario.  Kid X is throwing 88 as a freshman, he gets comitted to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Kid Y is throwing 88 as a sophomore and gets committed to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Whats the problem?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the higher ranked the kid is, the more scholarship dollars he will command, and also the higher-level program he will be offered by. If Kid X gets 75% and Kid Y gets 35% there are some very tangible consequences.

All things baseball wise being equal, Kid X will have more opportunities placed before him than Kid Y. They will have 2 different trajectories without a doubt. 

 

I don't see it. If anything I'd be worried kid x will have his scholarship percentage drop by NLI day.

Where is this coming from?  Maybe kid x got invited to some cool things in 9th grade but kid Y will still get his time in the limelight. Two different trajectories to wind up in the same spot seems a bit over the top.

Cabbage I appreciate the thoughtfulness with your response. This thread honestly doesn't have anything to do with that thread. In fact my 2019 and I had an honest conversation about things this past wknd during a tourney and it went better than I could have expected.

The premise of this thread is something that I've thought about and dealt with since my son started playing LL some 12 yrs ago. I've seen 1st hand where this has helped kids stand out long term and when it was only short term. I've always thought that the only reason a kid should be held back is for academics. If not, then the parent is only trying to give their kid an advantage that they weren't born with. The school system used to frown upon parents doing this and so did society, but somewhere along the way that changed. IMO parents are taking advantage of a loophole that changes the natural balance of order, mostly because they didn't want their child to be average. 

There's a sense of fairness (and yes I know life's not fair) that's being trampled on. I don't have a problem with my 16 yr old competing against and being judged against his peer group of other 16yr olds for a chance to play college ball. There will always be someone bigger, stronger, faster than him who's his peer. I just think forcing him to have to compete with 17yr olds for the same opportunities isn't right, let them compete with other 17 yr olds. My son was the starting SS for his varsity team this year and the #2 starter, so I'm not talking about playing in HS. I'm talking about playing at the next level at the best possible college he can.

Texas 2 Sons posted:

Cabbage I appreciate the thoughtfulness with your response. This thread honestly doesn't have anything to do with that thread. In fact my 2019 and I had an honest conversation about things this past wknd during a tourney and it went better than I could have expected.

The premise of this thread is something that I've thought about and dealt with since my son started playing LL some 12 yrs ago. I've seen 1st hand where this has helped kids stand out long term and when it was only short term. I've always thought that the only reason a kid should be held back is for academics. If not, then the parent is only trying to give their kid an advantage that they weren't born with. The school system used to frown upon parents doing this and so did society, but somewhere along the way that changed. IMO parents are taking advantage of a loophole that changes the natural balance of order, mostly because they didn't want their child to be average. 

There's a sense of fairness (and yes I know life's not fair) that's being trampled on. I don't have a problem with my 16 yr old competing against and being judged against his peer group of other 16yr olds for a chance to play college ball. There will always be someone bigger, stronger, faster than him who's his peer. I just think forcing him to have to compete with 17yr olds for the same opportunities isn't right, let them compete with other 17 yr olds. My son was the starting SS for his varsity team this year and the #2 starter, so I'm not talking about playing in HS. I'm talking about playing at the next level at the best possible college he can.

This is the crux of your posts. I get it, my kid has a summer birthday and he's facing the same crap.  The thing is though, if your kid is on the edge of D1 and currently being edged out by older kids maybe he should shoot for a different path in the baseball next level world. D2, NAIA, JUCO...lots of paths that will give him time to become older.

CaCO3Girl posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

2019Dad posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

I'm not talking about kids who aren't talented, that should be a given. Are you saying that a kid throwing 88 as a freshman doesn't stand out more than a kid throwing 88 as a sophomore? If he didn't PG wouldn't be tweeting about him. You better be throwing 90+ as a 2019 to see your name in a PG tweet, especially at the WWBA!

Play out your scenario.  Kid X is throwing 88 as a freshman, he gets comitted to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Kid Y is throwing 88 as a sophomore and gets committed to a D1 and ends up throwing 92 by senior year.

Whats the problem?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the higher ranked the kid is, the more scholarship dollars he will command, and also the higher-level program he will be offered by. If Kid X gets 75% and Kid Y gets 35% there are some very tangible consequences.

All things baseball wise being equal, Kid X will have more opportunities placed before him than Kid Y. They will have 2 different trajectories without a doubt. 

 

I don't see it. If anything I'd be worried kid x will have his scholarship percentage drop by NLI day.

Where is this coming from?  Maybe kid x got invited to some cool things in 9th grade but kid Y will still get his time in the limelight. Two different trajectories to wind up in the same spot seems a bit over the top.

Ok I'll use these 2 kids in 1 scenario that is very realistic:

Kid X is on PG top 20 list and therefore his name is widely circulated nationally. Kid Y isn't on any PG list and isn't known outside of his area.

Both kids apply for Invite to Area Code. Kid Y might get an invite and might not, but even if he does he won't make the team if not throwing 90+ as a rising junior.

Kid X on the other hand will not only get an invite but will have a great chance to make the team. If he does make this team his future will be on a much higher trajectory than kid Y. he will no longer be looked at as a college prospect but a MLB prospect. The opportunities and chances he will get will be much greater.

CaCO3Girl posted:

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

This comment makes no sense.

The OP posited whether the hold back of kids to gain a physical advantage over their class-year peers is appropriate. College recruiters see one thing - graduation year. They could care less about age except as it relates to projectability. If a coach sees a kid who is a 2019 who is already 17 and is physically mature and running a 6.8 60, throwing 85-87 across the diamond and hitting for power, there isn't really much left to Project. It then becomes a matter of whether the player's skills are at the level needed to play on that college level. But if he is comparing him to a 2019 who just turned 16 and is not yet showing he has reached physical maturity and is meeting the same measurables (or even slightly less than meeting them), then the edge may actually be with that younger player who still has some projection on adding size/speed/velo.

I deplore holding kids back for a competitive advantage, but at the same time it can benefit those who haven't done it if you compare and compete well against older athletes in your class. It will never end though.

 And for what it's worth, I think seeing committed 2018 players playing in a 16U WWBA this summer looks ridiculous. Why?

Texas 2 Sons posted:

Cabbage I appreciate the thoughtfulness with your response. This thread honestly doesn't have anything to do with that thread. In fact my 2019 and I had an honest conversation about things this past wknd during a tourney and it went better than I could have expected.

The premise of this thread is something that I've thought about and dealt with since my son started playing LL some 12 yrs ago. I've seen 1st hand where this has helped kids stand out long term and when it was only short term. I've always thought that the only reason a kid should be held back is for academics. If not, then the parent is only trying to give their kid an advantage that they weren't born with. The school system used to frown upon parents doing this and so did society, but somewhere along the way that changed. IMO parents are taking advantage of a loophole that changes the natural balance of order, mostly because they didn't want their child to be average. 

There's a sense of fairness (and yes I know life's not fair) that's being trampled on. I don't have a problem with my 16 yr old competing against and being judged against his peer group of other 16yr olds for a chance to play college ball. There will always be someone bigger, stronger, faster than him who's his peer. I just think forcing him to have to compete with 17yr olds for the same opportunities isn't right, let them compete with other 17 yr olds. My son was the starting SS for his varsity team this year and the #2 starter, so I'm not talking about playing in HS. I'm talking about playing at the next level at the best possible college he can.

Life is about adjustments. The sooner adjustments are made the sooner success and happiness will occur. 

A couple of nights ago I watched a game where one pitcher should have been dominant over the other. The umpire called a tight outside strike zone. The stud continued to pound that spot falling behind hitters setting them up to hit or walk. The much less talented pitcher went to the inside corner and pitched a complete game. 

The parents of the stud pitcher whined and complained about the strike zone. They said the eight run loss was the fault of the umpire. The problem was refusal to adjust to the circumstances.

i have kids with May and July birthdays. I never gave it a thought as a problem. I only considered what do they need to do to compete. 

Life isn't always fair. I couldn't be the chairman of Ford Motor Company. My last name isn't Ford. So I started my own company with partners. I still didn't get to be president/CEO/chairman. But I didn't get all the admin paperwork that went with it. 

The sooner you let go of this situation and look at it from a "how do they compete" angle the better off you will be. Chances are your son's will be better off. They don't need to hear it. 

PG started listing age (years + months) about a year ago and I think it was a great move on their part. But then, they recently post an article highlighting a high profile travel team and a few of their players currently playing in the 16U WWBA championship in GA. One of the players featured that is playing in this 16U event turns 18 in a few months.    

I'm a big supporter of PG - they do so much great things for kids to get exposure.....but they don't need to highlight a double hold back. 

It doesn't matter if a stud is a 17yo or 19yo senior in high school. A stud is a stud. Either way the stud is going to get the top offers for college baseball or possibly the draft. Everyone else should be looking for the best possible baseball experience where they can succeed. Some kids become studs later. It's why players are drafted from mid majors, D2 and D3. It's why major conference players who received 25% or walked on get drafted. 

RJM posted:

It doesn't matter if a stud is a 17yo or 19yo senior in high school. A stud is a stud. Either way the stud is going to get the top offers for college baseball or possibly the draft. Everyone else should be looking for the best possible baseball experience where they can succeed. Some kids become studs later. It's why players are drafted from mid majors, D2 and D3. It's why D1 players who received 25% or walked on get drafted. 

The difference between a 17 yo and a 19 yo is immense. But you are right about the college offers. I suppose it is up to college coaches to decipher what makes more sense for their program.

Age isnt a big deal for college recruiting, in some college coaches prefer an "older player". Where it matters is the pros. That lost year is big for MLB and will cost players drafted after 5th round.

WestCoastPapa posted:

PG started listing age (years + months) about a year ago and I think it was a great move on their part. But then, they recently post an article highlighting a high profile travel team and a few of their players currently playing in the 16U WWBA championship in GA. One of the players featured that is playing in this 16U event turns 18 in a few months.    

I'm a big supporter of PG - they do so much great things for kids to get exposure.....but they don't need to highlight a double hold back. 

PG doesn't have age requirements for its high-school age tournaments. For example, the 16U WWBA this week says: "Age Eligibility: 2019 Graduate or younger or born on or after May 01, 2000"

The "or" is the key -- so long as you are in the 2019 class, you could be 18 (or whatever) already. 

WestCoastPapa posted:

RJM posted:

It doesn't matter if a stud is a 17yo or 19yo senior in high school. A stud is a stud. Either way the stud is going to get the top offers for college baseball or possibly the draft. Everyone else should be looking for the best possible baseball experience where they can succeed. Some kids become studs later. It's why players are drafted from mid majors, D2 and D3. It's why D1 players who received 25% or walked on get drafted. 

The difference between a 17 yo and a 19 yo is immense. But you are right about the college offers. I suppose it is up to college coaches to decipher what makes more sense for their program.

I agree. It's why it's important to leave the word "stud" in my statement. 

SanDiegoRealist posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

All I can say is, only the truly talented can move up in those conditions, and if you aren't truly talented you weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

This comment makes no sense.

The OP posited whether the hold back of kids to gain a physical advantage over their class-year peers is appropriate. College recruiters see one thing - graduation year. They could care less about age except as it relates to projectability. If a coach sees a kid who is a 2019 who is already 17 and is physically mature and running a 6.8 60, throwing 85-87 across the diamond and hitting for power, there isn't really much left to Project. It then becomes a matter of whether the player's skills are at the level needed to play on that college level. But if he is comparing him to a 2019 who just turned 16 and is not yet showing he has reached physical maturity and is meeting the same measurables (or even slightly less than meeting them), then the edge may actually be with that younger player who still has some projection on adding size/speed/velo.

I deplore holding kids back for a competitive advantage, but at the same time it can benefit those who haven't done it if you compare and compete well against older athletes in your class. It will never end though.

 And for what it's worth, I think seeing committed 2018 players playing in a 16U WWBA this summer looks ridiculous. Why?

I took the OP's post to say "it's not fair to my kid that he has to compete with kids 2 years older than him, and it's cheating."

Based on his follow ups I'm assuming I am correct.

Everyone considers age when evaluating players.  Younger the better unless the older player is much better. The older your classmate, the less projection he might have.  Freshman and sophomores play with and against seniors quite often in HS.  Sometimes they are even better than most the seniors.  So I fail to see the big problem with an older junior playing with or against a younger junior.  I do think it might make a bigger difference in the younger brackets where the difference between a 14 year old and a 12 year old can be too much.

Our job involves recruiting and the draft.  No matter how much anyone wants to argue you become draft eligible by grad year.  You become a college freshman by grad year.  Obviously they aren't all the same age.  In fact there can be a two year difference between players in the same class. 

If one's talent doesn't allow one to attend Florida State then go to Florida county.