Age vs Class Year

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.

Well, what do you think is going to happen the first day he steps foot on that college field?  He is going to compete with guys 3,4,5 years older for the same position.  Why the heck wouldn't you 100% encourage him to embrace that challenge every day instead of let it bother you for 12 years?

Then, if he earns PT at that position, the next year the coach is going to try to bring someone in that is better than him... maybe a JC transfer or a bigger, better recruit.  You are thinking just about the playing field that leads up to the offer.  The most important part of college baseball is what happens after that.  If your son is talented enough, which I suspect he is, it won't matter what the "held back" kid gets offered.  Your son will make his way to a good place based on his own merits.  But he will need to have the mindset that he is ready and willing to take on all challengers, no matter what obstacles lie in front of him.

It is really great to hear that you and son had a good conversation.   I respectfully disagree that this thread doesn't have anything to do with the other  

CaCO3Girl posted:

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.

Wow..  I don't know your back story, but it seems you're offended by this post. Are you one of the parents that held their son back by chance? I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but it seems that is the case. If you are one, then what seemed unfair to your kid to have moved your son back?

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

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.

Wow..  I don't know your back story, but it seems you're offended by this post. Are you one of the parents that held their son back by chance? I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but it seems that is the case. If you are one, then what seemed unfair to your kid to have moved your son back?

LOL, her son will graduate high school at 17

2019Dad posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

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.

Wow..  I don't know your back story, but it seems you're offended by this post. Are you one of the parents that held their son back by chance? I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but it seems that is the case. If you are one, then what seemed unfair to your kid to have moved your son back?

LOL, her son will graduate high school at 17

That's why I lead with an apology...never want to assume but I guess I did,  lol. Sorry CaCO3girl!

Texas, read Cabbage's last post. It has so much truth. I can see where you are coming from, but worrying about anything you can't directly control will drive you nuts. I would advise you and your son to just put on your blinders, put your head down and work, work, work. I promise you there are going to be many things that seem "unfair". Wherever your kid winds up, college or pro ball, he will be competing against the best of the best. That kid that got the "advantage" will lose it at some point. Once everyone gets their man bodies, age is insignificant. In fact, the younger guy will have the advantage. If your kid aspires to play at D1 level, he needs to go in with eyes wide open. When he shows up at the first practice, most all the guys will be his equal from a talent level, plus they are going to have the experience factor as well as the coaches already have an idea what they bring to the table. So the playing field is rarely "level" at any point past high school. 

Texas 2 Sons posted:

2019Dad posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

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.

Wow..  I don't know your back story, but it seems you're offended by this post. Are you one of the parents that held their son back by chance? I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but it seems that is the case. If you are one, then what seemed unfair to your kid to have moved your son back?

LOL, her son will graduate high school at 17

That's why I lead with an apology...never want to assume but I guess I did,  lol. Sorry CaCO3girl!

Well it does strike a nerve so you aren't totally wrong.  My kid will still be 14 when he starts 10th grade. Yeah he's got an August birthday, which puts him at just about the youngest kid in the grade.

The thing that strikes a nerve is I'm in the same boat with my kid and I look at it as a blessing and you are looking at it as a curse.

I'm telling my kid there are no excuses. You really are the youngest kid here, so what?  You want it you had better fight for it and you are saying 17 year olds are cheaters for being held back by their parents. Maybe there was a divorce or a learning disability, maybe the kid was immature in kindergarten?  My point is the 17 year old isn't there to screw over your kid and I TRULY dislike hearing woe is me stories about baseball players with summer birthdays because it's an excuse. If your kid is good he's good against a 17 year old when he's 16.

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 major conference players who received 25% or walked on get drafted. 

This.

CaCO3Girl posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

2019Dad posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

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.

Wow..  I don't know your back story, but it seems you're offended by this post. Are you one of the parents that held their son back by chance? I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but it seems that is the case. If you are one, then what seemed unfair to your kid to have moved your son back?

LOL, her son will graduate high school at 17

That's why I lead with an apology...never want to assume but I guess I did,  lol. Sorry CaCO3girl!

Well it does strike a nerve so you aren't totally wrong.  My kid will still be 14 when he starts 10th grade. Yeah he's got an August birthday, which puts him at just about the youngest kid in the grade.

The thing that strikes a nerve is I'm in the same boat with my kid and I look at it as a blessing and you are looking at it as a curse.

I'm telling my kid there are no excuses. You really are the youngest kid here, so what?  You want it you had better fight for it and you are saying 17 year olds are cheaters for being held back by their parents. Maybe there was a divorce or a learning disability, maybe the kid was immature in kindergarten?  My point is the 17 year old isn't there to screw over your kid and I TRULY dislike hearing woe is me stories about baseball players with summer birthdays because it's an excuse. If your kid is good he's good against a 17 year old when he's 16.

She is 100% correct.  

Also keep in mind that your perception is a lot different than a scout or coach who is paid to evaluate talent.

CaCO3Girl posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

2019Dad posted:

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

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.

Wow..  I don't know your back story, but it seems you're offended by this post. Are you one of the parents that held their son back by chance? I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but it seems that is the case. If you are one, then what seemed unfair to your kid to have moved your son back?

LOL, her son will graduate high school at 17

That's why I lead with an apology...never want to assume but I guess I did,  lol. Sorry CaCO3girl!

Well it does strike a nerve so you aren't totally wrong.  My kid will still be 14 when he starts 10th grade. Yeah he's got an August birthday, which puts him at just about the youngest kid in the grade.

The thing that strikes a nerve is I'm in the same boat with my kid and I look at it as a blessing and you are looking at it as a curse.

I'm telling my kid there are no excuses. You really are the youngest kid here, so what?  You want it you had better fight for it and you are saying 17 year olds are cheaters for being held back by their parents. Maybe there was a divorce or a learning disability, maybe the kid was immature in kindergarten?  My point is the 17 year old isn't there to screw over your kid and I TRULY dislike hearing woe is me stories about baseball players with summer birthdays because it's an excuse. If your kid is good he's good against a 17 year old when he's 16.

!st of all you don't know anything about me or my son. How you can make so many assumptions in the last paragraph is ridiculous and irresponsible. I never said anything about kids with "disabilities or maturity problems", I said kids who were held back specifically for sports. I never gave a "woe is me" story and I definitely never used a summer birthday as an "excuse". I never once said that what I've written on this forum is what I've taught my son to look at. He doesn't know any better but to go on the field and work his butt off. I never once said my son was being screwed over. I tried to bring up a topic for discussion about something that is real and does have an impact in the baseball world. For you or anyone else to say it doesn't either exist or doesn't have an impact then you're being naive. If you want to say that you haven't experienced it or don't think it will impact you, then go ahead. But if you don't think that your son is at a distinct disadvantage, then I've got a good friend of mine you can talk to whose son's b-day is Aug 24th. He can tell you the real issues they dealt with and the impact it had on his HS and college career.

There are a lot of well meaning people on hear drawing conclusions about me from assumptions you're making that just aren't true. Have a nice night!

Something to bear in mind is that pro ball frowns on held back HS guys. A good example is Blake Rutherford 2016 draft . Blake is a terrific talent and was on some pre draft boards as a top 5 pick. Most as a top 10 pick.

Blake went to the Yankees w/ the 18th pick overall . Which is fantastic but Scouts were concerned that he had turned 19 in May of his Senior year.

Texas 2 Sons posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

Well it does strike a nerve so you aren't totally wrong.  My kid will still be 14 when he starts 10th grade. Yeah he's got an August birthday, which puts him at just about the youngest kid in the grade.

The thing that strikes a nerve is I'm in the same boat with my kid and I look at it as a blessing and you are looking at it as a curse.

I'm telling my kid there are no excuses. You really are the youngest kid here, so what?  You want it you had better fight for it and you are saying 17 year olds are cheaters for being held back by their parents. Maybe there was a divorce or a learning disability, maybe the kid was immature in kindergarten?  My point is the 17 year old isn't there to screw over your kid and I TRULY dislike hearing woe is me stories about baseball players with summer birthdays because it's an excuse. If your kid is good he's good against a 17 year old when he's 16.

!st of all you don't know anything about me or my son. How you can make so many assumptions in the last paragraph is ridiculous and irresponsible. I never said anything about kids with "disabilities or maturity problems", I said kids who were held back specifically for sports. I never gave a "woe is me" story and I definitely never used a summer birthday as an "excuse". I never once said that what I've written on this forum is what I've taught my son to look at. He doesn't know any better but to go on the field and work his butt off. I never once said my son was being screwed over. I tried to bring up a topic for discussion about something that is real and does have an impact in the baseball world. For you or anyone else to say it doesn't either exist or doesn't have an impact then you're being naive. If you want to say that you haven't experienced it or don't think it will impact you, then go ahead. But if you don't think that your son is at a distinct disadvantage, then I've got a good friend of mine you can talk to whose son's b-day is Aug 24th. He can tell you the real issues they dealt with and the impact it had on his HS and college career.

There are a lot of well meaning people on hear drawing conclusions about me from assumptions you're making that just aren't true. Have a nice night!

You did not talk about kids with disabilities or maturity problems, you said: "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?"  I am saying you don't know why those kids are that age in that grade.  It could be other things.

Regarding the excuses I read into and the assumptions I made that just aren't true.... you said:

-(when you thought I had held my kid back) what seemed unfair to your kid to have moved your son back? Then you said "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."

-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.

-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.

I think the discussion of kids in the same class being 2 years apart does have merit, but when you open up the thread with "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." It's not going to stay about a 2 year age difference, the thread is going to veer off into a "I feel my kids was screwed"..."No, your kid is not being screwed" debate.

Kid held back is a year late to his career and misses an entire year of income.. And one year less earning before retiring.

bandera posted:

Kid held back is a year late to his career and misses an entire year of income.. And one year less earning before retiring.

I've never bought into this argument. First year income is usually low and little or nothing is saved.

My 12 yo has a November bday and will be starting HS at 13 and hopefully college at 17. I empathize/sympathize with your rant, but I fully agree with the others who opined to deal with the things you can control, i.e., helping your kid be the best player he can be.

RJM posted:

bandera posted:

Kid held back is a year late to his career and misses an entire year of income.. And one year less earning before retiring.

I've never bought into this argument. First year income is usually low and little or nothing is saved.

it's just the opposite.  both kids get year 1 salary.  year 2 and so on.   the 20YO graduate only gets X years of income while the 19YO gets X+1.  with X being retirement age.  That last extra year is usually at a decent pay rate.   

bandera posted:

RJM posted:

bandera posted:

Kid held back is a year late to his career and misses an entire year of income.. And one year less earning before retiring.

I've never bought into this argument. First year income is usually low and little or nothing is saved.

it's just the opposite.  both kids get year 1 salary.  year 2 and so on.   the 20YO graduate only gets X years of income while the 19YO gets X+1.  with X being retirement age.  That last extra year is usually at a decent pay rate.   

 

In mathematical theory you're right? Here's another reason why I don't accept the theory. Most successful people are going to do well enough where a year or two won't matter. People at the other end don't save enough to matter. Then there's all kinds of exception factors; the person's field, swings in the economy, effect of further education and when received. 

The overriding factor for when a kid starts school, and therefore graduates is maturity. Some kids, mostly boys aren't ready for school at five.

i graduated from colllege in January of the following year and started work in June at age twenty-three. It did not have a negative effect on the back end. My son entered the work force at twenty-three with a grad degree. His starting pay is above average of the typical person entering the work force.

RJM posted:

bandera posted:

RJM posted:

bandera posted:

Kid held back is a year late to his career and misses an entire year of income.. And one year less earning before retiring.

I've never bought into this argument. First year income is usually low and little or nothing is saved.

it's just the opposite.  both kids get year 1 salary.  year 2 and so on.   the 20YO graduate only gets X years of income while the 19YO gets X+1.  with X being retirement age.  That last extra year is usually at a decent pay rate.   

 

In mathematical theory you're right? Here's another reason why I don't accept the theory. Most successful people are going to do well enough where a year or two won't matter. People at the other end don't save enough to matter. Then there's all kinds of exception factors; the person's field, swings in the economy, effect of further education and when received. 

The overriding factor for when a kid starts school, and therefore graduates is maturity. Some kids, mostly boys aren't ready for school at five.

i graduated from colllege in January of the following year and started work in June at age twenty-three. It did not have a negative effect on the back end. My son entered the work force at twenty-three with a grad degree. His starting pay is above average of the typical person entering the work force.

And let's be real!  One more year as "youth" is truly a blessing.  I'll admit to being a youth through my twenties.  I didn't go back to school until I was 26.  That was a great decade!  My wife and I got married in our early twenties and became ski bums in the winter and traveled on a shoestring in the summer.  It was a great time in our lives.  Granted, I am a decade behind in my career and at times I am envious of those careers that started in their mid 20's.  Than I think back on the experiences we had in our twenties and still feel it was worth it.   

the best 17 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds.  In fact the best 16 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds.  When it comes time to decide between two players of similar ability, the youngest one wins, because players are expected to improve in time.  Maybe some might say that isn't fair to the older kid.

Of course a lot has to do with physical maturity rather than just age. All 16 year olds are not the same.  Other than maturity you have college freshman beating out college seniors that are four years older in some cases. Guess I don't understand why anyone would think being older is cheating when the clear advantage is being younger. Either way, it is all about talent and projection when it comes to decision makers.

The highest drafted position player in next years draft, if he were only eligible, will be a junior this coming year.  He is actually getting cheated by being too young.  If a player cant compete and be recognized playing against kids one or two years older, he isn't likely to play at a high next level when he is older.  That said, there are always some late bloomers and they are usually the younger guys. Freshman are freshman and seniors are seniors, baseball doesn't dictate that, but recruiting and the draft go by it.

PGStaff posted:

the best 17 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds.  In fact the best 16 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds.  When it comes time to decide between two players of similar ability, the youngest one wins, because players are expected to improve in time.  Maybe some might say that isn't fair to the older kid.

Of course a lot has to do with physical maturity rather than just age. All 16 year olds are not the same.  Other than maturity you have college freshman beating out college seniors that are four years older in some cases. Guess I don't understand why anyone would think being older is cheating when the clear advantage is being younger. Either way, it is all about talent and projection when it comes to decision makers.

The highest drafted position player in next years draft, if he were only eligible, will be a junior this coming year.  He is actually getting cheated by being too young.  If a player cant compete and be recognized playing against kids one or two years older, he isn't likely to play at a high next level when he is older.  That said, there are always some late bloomers and they are usually the younger guys. Freshman are freshman and seniors are seniors, baseball doesn't dictate that, but recruiting and the draft go by it.

Did anyone else just hear a Mic Drop?  Or was that just in MY head?

CaCO3Girl posted:

PGStaff posted:

the best 17 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds.  In fact the best 16 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds.  When it comes time to decide between two players of similar ability, the youngest one wins, because players are expected to improve in time.  Maybe some might say that isn't fair to the older kid.

Of course a lot has to do with physical maturity rather than just age. All 16 year olds are not the same.  Other than maturity you have college freshman beating out college seniors that are four years older in some cases. Guess I don't understand why anyone would think being older is cheating when the clear advantage is being younger. Either way, it is all about talent and projection when it comes to decision makers.

The highest drafted position player in next years draft, if he were only eligible, will be a junior this coming year.  He is actually getting cheated by being too young.  If a player cant compete and be recognized playing against kids one or two years older, he isn't likely to play at a high next level when he is older.  That said, there are always some late bloomers and they are usually the younger guys. Freshman are freshman and seniors are seniors, baseball doesn't dictate that, but recruiting and the draft go by it.

Did anyone else just hear a Mic Drop?  Or was that just in MY head?

You can't just leave it rest, eh?

SanDiegoRealist posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

PGStaff posted:

the best 17 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds.  In fact the best 16 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds.  When it comes time to decide between two players of similar ability, the youngest one wins, because players are expected to improve in time.  Maybe some might say that isn't fair to the older kid.

Of course a lot has to do with physical maturity rather than just age. All 16 year olds are not the same.  Other than maturity you have college freshman beating out college seniors that are four years older in some cases. Guess I don't understand why anyone would think being older is cheating when the clear advantage is being younger. Either way, it is all about talent and projection when it comes to decision makers.

The highest drafted position player in next years draft, if he were only eligible, will be a junior this coming year.  He is actually getting cheated by being too young.  If a player cant compete and be recognized playing against kids one or two years older, he isn't likely to play at a high next level when he is older.  That said, there are always some late bloomers and they are usually the younger guys. Freshman are freshman and seniors are seniors, baseball doesn't dictate that, but recruiting and the draft go by it.

Did anyone else just hear a Mic Drop?  Or was that just in MY head?

You can't just leave it rest, eh?

Look, I'm with those who say "don't worry about it" and "control what you can control" and all that . . . But the idea that it is a disadvantage to be older in, say, 9th grade is flat out not true. Look at the Top 10 2020 kids ranked by PG -- how many are still 14 (i.e., will be 17 when they graduate high school)? None. In fact, none of them are even 15 and a half, either. All are older. Look at the 2019 Top 10. 9 out of the 10 are 16 and 8 months or older. One outlier (Malcolm Gladwell reference ) is 16 and 4 months. No 15 year olds or recently turned 16 year olds to be found.

If it were an advantage to be younger, wouldn't there be lots of 14 or 14 and a half kids in the 2020 Top 10, and lots of 15 or 15 and a half kids in the 2019 Top 10?

As long as folks follow the rules (no 20 year olds in high school) I have no problem with it. But that is entirely different from saying it doesn't provide an advantage. Heck, that's why parents do it.

2019Dad posted:

Look, I'm with those who say "don't worry about it" and "control what you can control" and all that . . . But the idea that it is a disadvantage to be older in, say, 9th grade is flat out not true. Look at the Top 10 2020 kids ranked by PG -- how many are still 14 (i.e., will be 17 when they graduate high school)? None. In fact, none of them are even 15 and a half, either. All are older. Look at the 2019 Top 10. 9 out of the 10 are 16 and 8 months or older. One outlier (Malcolm Gladwell reference ) is 16 and 4 months. No 15 year olds or recently turned 16 year olds to be found.

If it were an advantage to be younger, wouldn't there be lots of 14 or 14 and a half kids in the 2020 Top 10, and lots of 15 or 15 and a half kids in the 2019 Top 10?

As long as folks follow the rules (no 20 year olds in high school) I have no problem with it. But that is entirely different from saying it doesn't provide an advantage. Heck, that's why parents do it.

Many of the 14u and 15u kids don't live near a PG event, so they aren't listed.  However, by the time they hit senior year most players who want to go to college have played a PG event.  This older is stringer and better thing provides a SHORT term advantage, an advantage in 9th grade, and an advantage that evens out by senior year.

Top three 2017's:

1. 17 years 11 months

2. 18 years 3 months

3. 18 years 1 month

When you are good you are good. Those top 10 lists will change drastically over time.  It's no surprise that if a kid is bigger and stronger at age 14 he's going to do better (says the mom of a 6'1 14 year old).  However, when everyone actually goes through puberty the cream of the crop is just the cream of the crop, it isn't because they stayed back, it is because they are blessed in the genes department AND worked their butts off.

CaCO3Girl posted:

2019Dad posted:

Look, I'm with those who say "don't worry about it" and "control what you can control" and all that . . . But the idea that it is a disadvantage to be older in, say, 9th grade is flat out not true. Look at the Top 10 2020 kids ranked by PG -- how many are still 14 (i.e., will be 17 when they graduate high school)? None. In fact, none of them are even 15 and a half, either. All are older. Look at the 2019 Top 10. 9 out of the 10 are 16 and 8 months or older. One outlier (Malcolm Gladwell reference ) is 16 and 4 months. No 15 year olds or recently turned 16 year olds to be found.

If it were an advantage to be younger, wouldn't there be lots of 14 or 14 and a half kids in the 2020 Top 10, and lots of 15 or 15 and a half kids in the 2019 Top 10?

As long as folks follow the rules (no 20 year olds in high school) I have no problem with it. But that is entirely different from saying it doesn't provide an advantage. Heck, that's why parents do it.

Many of the 14u and 15u kids don't live near a PG event, so they aren't listed.  However, by the time they hit senior year most players who want to go to college have played a PG event.  This older is stringer and better thing provides a SHORT term advantage, an advantage in 9th grade, and an advantage that evens out by senior year.

Top three 2017's:

1. 17 years 11 months

2. 18 years 3 months

3. 18 years 1 month

When you are good you are good. Those top 10 lists will change drastically over time.  It's no surprise that if a kid is bigger and stronger at age 14 he's going to do better (says the mom of a 6'1 14 year old).  However, when everyone actually goes through puberty the cream of the crop is just the cream of the crop, it isn't because they stayed back, it is because they are blessed in the genes department AND worked their butts off.

C'mon . . . so only the older kids live near PG events? Really? And anyone who holds their child back for sports purposes is actually not giving them an advantage for sports purposes?

I'm sorry, maybe my perspective was skewed by reading Outliers years ago, but I don't think that is the case. Even within a given year, there is a relative age effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect

In baseball, for 55 years the age cutoff for Little League was Aug. 1. http://christopherlee.com/birt...ball-players-part-i/

"Among US born players, 12.2% of MLB players have birthdays in August, while only 6.4% have birthdays in July. A discrepancy that big can’t just happen by accident can it?  Not likely.  The reasoning is that the Little League Baseball cutoff date for 55 years (up until 2006) was July 31.

So what does that mean?  A player, for example, born on August 1, 1996 would be playing in the same division as a kid born on July 31, 1997.  Given the cutoff date, the kid with a birthday on August 1 is a year older than the kid with a birthday on July 31 yet they are playing in the same division.  Thus, the player with the birthday in August likely has an advantage in size, strength and maturity.  Players with birthdays in August may be more likely to get picked for All Stars, get advanced training and practice, and selected for more competitive leagues which ultimately helps make them a more successful player."

There is lots of data that shows it to be an advantage to be older. Don't worry about it, don't complain about it, focus on yourself and what you can control . . . But let's not pretend that the advantage doesn't exist.

Perhaps it is because we don't live in a Baseball hotbed, but I have found that for my Kid, having a birthdate near/before the cutoff date was fantastic, he was routinely competing against players a grade older and holding his own based on needing to develop skills and work ethic to compete with kids who were earlier into their growth spurts.   Now he is flying past them in terms of size & strength but still has the work ethic and developing skills

your mileage may vary

Carlos Correa was the first pick of the draft in 2012.  He was 17 years old at the time. His first full year in professional baseball he was 18 years old while most that age are still playing HS ball. I don't know how he could have gained any advantage by being one or two years older. His young age was a positive to the Astros in that draft. I think he is 22 right now and the starting shortstop in the all star game tonight.  He is hitting .325 with 20 HRs and 65 RBI.

I think the vast majority of top players are the correct age for their class.  All of our top 25 ranked 2018 players are 17 years old right now.  Makes sense, the vast majority of rising HS seniors are 17 right now and 18 when they graduate. Dominicans can sign at age 16 and then play with and against players 2 or 3 years older.  The better ones do well, and others not so well.

"In 2000, John Holway argued in a book called The Baseball Astrologer that the sign under which an individual was born played a significant role in whether he made it in pro ball. Holway identified a real phenomenon, but the explanation does not lie in the stars. Since 1950, a baby born in the United States in August has had a 50 percent to 60 percent better chance of making the big leagues than a baby born in July. The lesson: If you want your child to be a professional baseball player, you should start planning early. Very early. As in before conception."

Isn't August one of those months that can have kids go young or old when starting school. Excuse me for not knowing, I have kids that are almost 50.

PGStaff posted:

Isn't August one of those months that can have kids go young or old when starting school. Excuse me for not knowing, I have kids that are almost 50.

I am hearing, not knowing for sure, that some states start school in different months.  I do know in Davenport, Florida we start on August 10th this year. My son is a September birthday. His California Team mates start school later than he I was told.

I know that PG loves data. It's one of the things I like about the organization (well, besides the great baseball ).

There are always exceptions (Ken Griffey, Mike Trout, etc.) who were younger, but the relative age effect is a real thing, supported by lots of data. Even the statement that all of the top 25 in the class of 2018 are 17 years old right now is revealing -- that means there are zero kids amongst the Top 25 born in late July or August (or the fall) of 2000, who would be 16 now and 17 when they graduate. Yet there are many such kids amongst the general student population. That is a good example of the relative age effect.

CaCO3Girl posted:

2019Dad posted:

Look, I'm with those who say "don't worry about it" and "control what you can control" and all that . . . But the idea that it is a disadvantage to be older in, say, 9th grade is flat out not true. Look at the Top 10 2020 kids ranked by PG -- how many are still 14 (i.e., will be 17 when they graduate high school)? None. In fact, none of them are even 15 and a half, either. All are older. Look at the 2019 Top 10. 9 out of the 10 are 16 and 8 months or older. One outlier (Malcolm Gladwell reference ) is 16 and 4 months. No 15 year olds or recently turned 16 year olds to be found.

If it were an advantage to be younger, wouldn't there be lots of 14 or 14 and a half kids in the 2020 Top 10, and lots of 15 or 15 and a half kids in the 2019 Top 10?

As long as folks follow the rules (no 20 year olds in high school) I have no problem with it. But that is entirely different from saying it doesn't provide an advantage. Heck, that's why parents do it.

Many of the 14u and 15u kids don't live near a PG event, so they aren't listed.  However, by the time they hit senior year most players who want to go to college have played a PG event.  This older is stringer and better thing provides a SHORT term advantage, an advantage in 9th grade, and an advantage that evens out by senior year.

Top three 2017's:

1. 17 years 11 months

2. 18 years 3 months

3. 18 years 1 month

When you are good you are good. Those top 10 lists will change drastically over time.  It's no surprise that if a kid is bigger and stronger at age 14 he's going to do better (says the mom of a 6'1 14 year old).  However, when everyone actually goes through puberty the cream of the crop is just the cream of the crop, it isn't because they stayed back, it is because they are blessed in the genes department AND worked their butts off.

What you continually fail to grasp or refuse to believe in this conversation, is that by the time your "6'1 14yr old Soph" gets caught up when he's a senior (and that's a big IF) and he's good enough to play at a Power 5 school, there won't be any baseball $$ left. It went to all the kids who showed out as freshman and sophomores, and as 2019Dad just showed you the majority of those kids are older. Those are what we in the real world call facts. Just because you don't think it pertains to you because "your son is blessed in the genes dept and works his butt off" doesn't make them not facts. Good luck to you and your son, but I've really grown weary of discussing this with you so please don't respond to me anymore.

1. It's a family decision based upon so many variables and different variables for each family that you can't define the reasons behind the initial decision.

2. OP is seeing the success stories displayed on PG rankings and through recruiting; the three kids of whom I have personal knowledge and who were held back in eigth grade specifically to impact athletics, didn't play beyond HS.  We need better data; but even so, there's always going to be an old kid and a young kid playing in the same age group..

3. Younger players of "equal" skills to an older player will be favored.

4. Present skills + future projections= desirability.

5. If a player is good there is a place he can play beyond HS - if he wants. There's plenty of room to play college baseball if the answer to 4 is high enough.

6. In Pinto ball, I drafted the biggest and oldest players. It worked. Several kids I passed on played college and a few went pro; weirdly, none of the other kids went beyond HS.

7. My son was young for his age - and small. I was bummed also. In the end, the effect fades through HS and is gone by sophomore year in college. And you can't control the recruiters' bias - one way or another - towards age.

The players all get their chance to go as far as their talents take them, their bodies allow them, and their heart desires it.

PGStaff posted:

Carlos Correa was the first pick of the draft in 2012.  He was 17 years old at the time. His first full year in professional baseball he was 18 years old while most that age are still playing HS ball. I don't know how he could have gained any advantage by being one or two years older. His young age was a positive to the Astros in that draft. I think he is 22 right now and the starting shortstop in the all star game tonight.  He is hitting .325 with 20 HRs and 65 RBI.

I think the vast majority of top players are the correct age for their class.  All of our top 25 ranked 2018 players are 17 years old right now.  Makes sense, the vast majority of rising HS seniors are 17 right now and 18 when they graduate. Dominicans can sign at age 16 and then play with and against players 2 or 3 years older.  The better ones do well, and others not so well.

PG I understand what you're saying and can appreciate your viewpoint. Unfortunately talking about kids who are 1st round draftable and kids who are vying for D1 scholarships is not anywhere close to being in the same universe. Right now as you know at the WWBA, there are many kids getting scholarship offers from most of the top D1 programs in the US. I don't have access to all the data you have, but I would wager that at least 1/2 of them are 2020's who are at least 16 already. A few that are from this area, I know for sure are.

2019Dad posted:

Look, I'm with those who say "don't worry about it" and "control what you can control" and all that . . . But the idea that it is a disadvantage to be older in, say, 9th grade is flat out not true. Look at the Top 10 2020 kids ranked by PG -- how many are still 14 (i.e., will be 17 when they graduate high school)? None. In fact, none of them are even 15 and a half, either. All are older. Look at the 2019 Top 10. 9 out of the 10 are 16 and 8 months or older. One outlier (Malcolm Gladwell reference ) is 16 and 4 months. No 15 year olds or recently turned 16 year olds to be found.

If it were an advantage to be younger, wouldn't there be lots of 14 or 14 and a half kids in the 2020 Top 10, and lots of 15 or 15 and a half kids in the 2019 Top 10?

As long as folks follow the rules (no 20 year olds in high school) I have no problem with it. But that is entirely different from saying it doesn't provide an advantage. Heck, that's why parents do it.

now there is the mike drop moment!

Goosegg posted:

1. It's a family decision based upon so many variables and different variables for each family that you can't define the reasons behind the initial decision.

2. OP is seeing the success stories displayed on PG rankings and through recruiting; the three kids of whom I have personal knowledge and who were held back in eigth grade specifically to impact athletics, didn't play beyond HS.  We need better data; but even so, there's always going to be an old kid and a young kid playing in the same age group..

3. Younger players of "equal" skills to an older player will be favored.

4. Present skills + future projections= desirability.

5. If a player is good there is a place he can play beyond HS - if he wants. There's plenty of room to play college baseball if the answer to 4 is high enough.

6. In Pinto ball, I drafted the biggest and oldest players. It worked. Several kids I passed on played college and a few went pro; weirdly, none of the other kids went beyond HS.

7. My son was young for his age - and small. I was bummed also. In the end, the effect fades through HS and is gone by sophomore year in college. And you can't control the recruiters' bias - one way or another - towards age.

The players all get their chance to go as far as their talents take them, their bodies allow them, and their heart desires it.

"The players all get their chance to go as far as their talents take them, their bodies allow them, and their heart desires it."

This should be on a landing page for all those new to this site. 

CaCO3Girl posted:

2019Dad posted:

Look, I'm with those who say "don't worry about it" and "control what you can control" and all that . . . But the idea that it is a disadvantage to be older in, say, 9th grade is flat out not true. Look at the Top 10 2020 kids ranked by PG -- how many are still 14 (i.e., will be 17 when they graduate high school)? None. In fact, none of them are even 15 and a half, either. All are older. Look at the 2019 Top 10. 9 out of the 10 are 16 and 8 months or older. One outlier (Malcolm Gladwell reference ) is 16 and 4 months. No 15 year olds or recently turned 16 year olds to be found.

If it were an advantage to be younger, wouldn't there be lots of 14 or 14 and a half kids in the 2020 Top 10, and lots of 15 or 15 and a half kids in the 2019 Top 10?

As long as folks follow the rules (no 20 year olds in high school) I have no problem with it. But that is entirely different from saying it doesn't provide an advantage. Heck, that's why parents do it.

Many of the 14u and 15u kids don't live near a PG event, so they aren't listed.  However, by the time they hit senior year most players who want to go to college have played a PG event.  This older is stringer and better thing provides a SHORT term advantage, an advantage in 9th grade, and an advantage that evens out by senior year.

Top three 2017's:

1. 17 years 11 months

2. 18 years 3 months

3. 18 years 1 month

When you are good you are good. Those top 10 lists will change drastically over time.  It's no surprise that if a kid is bigger and stronger at age 14 he's going to do better (says the mom of a 6'1 14 year old).  However, when everyone actually goes through puberty the cream of the crop is just the cream of the crop, it isn't because they stayed back, it is because they are blessed in the genes department AND worked their butts off.

So you seem to be saying the list ranking players prior to their senior year are meaningless? That those lists change based on player development? Anecdotally, I would agree with you if it were true, but in reality it is not as true as you think. I have seen kids on the PG rankings list as perennial fixtures year after year. Why is that? Because those are the kids that from say age 13-14, when PG starts to really become a coveted bragging right, that go to the showcases and perform well. If a kid has a physical advantage based on being 1 to 2 years older than their competition at that point, and based on that get invitations to other more prestigious events that are perhaps invitation only, then it starts to become a self licking ice cream cone. I have seen kids who made high level teams at age 12 (USA Baseball) who haven't grown much physically since then and are still making those rosters year after year. Their velocity as pitchers hasn't increased commensurate to their age. They are still being selected for these teams. So did being physically larger than other kids at a younger age provide an advantage, whether based on age or just being a big kid? You bet it did.

I know a kid who is a commit to a baseball powerhouse as a frosh. They took him based on his size and projectability. They projected him to be a bigtime LHP. He hasn't developed as a pitcher, in fact he doesn't pitch at all anymore. But man, he was a projectable kid as a frosh and got that verbal to a dream school!

PGStaff posted:

the best 17 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds.  In fact the best 16 year olds have no problem competing against the best 18 year olds.  When it comes time to decide between two players of similar ability, the youngest one wins, because players are expected to improve in time.  Maybe some might say that isn't fair to the older kid.

Of course a lot has to do with physical maturity rather than just age. All 16 year olds are not the same.  Other than maturity you have college freshman beating out college seniors that are four years older in some cases. Guess I don't understand why anyone would think being older is cheating when the clear advantage is being younger. Either way, it is all about talent and projection when it comes to decision makers.

The highest drafted position player in next years draft, if he were only eligible, will be a junior this coming year.  He is actually getting cheated by being too young.  If a player cant compete and be recognized playing against kids one or two years older, he isn't likely to play at a high next level when he is older.  That said, there are always some late bloomers and they are usually the younger guys. Freshman are freshman and seniors are seniors, baseball doesn't dictate that, but recruiting and the draft go by it.

PG thank you for making my point with your last paragraph. If the kid you're talking about is from Texas and his dad played in the MLB (I don't want to mention the kids name) and he's the #1 ranked 2019 player on your website. That kid is already 17! Had his parents not held him back he would be an incoming senior and therefore be available for next years draft. He's not being cheated at all like you said. He does have an advantage of being a year older than his peers though! It will be interesting to follow and see if he will be drafted 1st overall since he will turn 19 either right before or right after the draft happens.

SanDiegoRealist posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

2019Dad posted:

Look, I'm with those who say "don't worry about it" and "control what you can control" and all that . . . But the idea that it is a disadvantage to be older in, say, 9th grade is flat out not true. Look at the Top 10 2020 kids ranked by PG -- how many are still 14 (i.e., will be 17 when they graduate high school)? None. In fact, none of them are even 15 and a half, either. All are older. Look at the 2019 Top 10. 9 out of the 10 are 16 and 8 months or older. One outlier (Malcolm Gladwell reference ) is 16 and 4 months. No 15 year olds or recently turned 16 year olds to be found.

If it were an advantage to be younger, wouldn't there be lots of 14 or 14 and a half kids in the 2020 Top 10, and lots of 15 or 15 and a half kids in the 2019 Top 10?

As long as folks follow the rules (no 20 year olds in high school) I have no problem with it. But that is entirely different from saying it doesn't provide an advantage. Heck, that's why parents do it.

Many of the 14u and 15u kids don't live near a PG event, so they aren't listed.  However, by the time they hit senior year most players who want to go to college have played a PG event.  This older is stringer and better thing provides a SHORT term advantage, an advantage in 9th grade, and an advantage that evens out by senior year.

Top three 2017's:

1. 17 years 11 months

2. 18 years 3 months

3. 18 years 1 month

When you are good you are good. Those top 10 lists will change drastically over time.  It's no surprise that if a kid is bigger and stronger at age 14 he's going to do better (says the mom of a 6'1 14 year old).  However, when everyone actually goes through puberty the cream of the crop is just the cream of the crop, it isn't because they stayed back, it is because they are blessed in the genes department AND worked their butts off.

So you seem to be saying the list ranking players prior to their senior year are meaningless? That those lists change based on player development? Anecdotally, I would agree with you if it were true, but in reality it is not as true as you think. I have seen kids on the PG rankings list as perennial fixtures year after year. Why is that? Because those are the kids that from say age 13-14, when PG starts to really become a coveted bragging right, that go to the showcases and perform well. If a kid has a physical advantage based on being 1 to 2 years older than their competition at that point, and based on that get invitations to other more prestigious events that are perhaps invitation only, then it starts to become a self licking ice cream cone. I have seen kids who made high level teams at age 12 (USA Baseball) who haven't grown much physically since then and are still making those rosters year after year. Their velocity as pitchers hasn't increased commensurate to their age. They are still being selected for these teams. So did being physically larger than other kids at a younger age provide an advantage, whether based on age or just being a big kid? You bet it did.

I know a kid who is a commit to a baseball powerhouse as a frosh. They took him based on his size and projectability. They projected him to be a bigtime LHP. He hasn't developed as a pitcher, in fact he doesn't pitch at all anymore. But man, he was a projectable kid as a frosh and got that verbal to a dream school!

So, then, what good is that verbal at a dream school going to do him if and when he ever sets foot on the campus?  His situation now is going to be a mess.  Is that what is most important for you and your kid?  Making the big announcement in HS?  Or is it seeing what he can truly do once he steps on a college field?  Or making sure the student athlete and school are a good fit?

This back and forth can go on forever about pros and cons of older/younger, bigger/smaller, LH/RH, Living in baseball states/not, early commit/late, etc., etc.  Again, it comes down to perspective and attitude.  Some want to find all the ways they were wronged, focus on the advantages others have...    No.  Look inward.  Be the best you can be with what you have.  Find a way to make it happen.  Isn't that what the focus should be that we project with our kids?  And, who the h$ll wants a self licking ice cream cone?  I want to enjoy that whole "process" myself!

I have a solution to the entire debate. It works the way it does. It's not changing. Find your own way to succeed in the process. 

A lot of players feel this way.... Go JUCO or Post Grad Academy, gives you a year to develop. That 19 year old freshman in college isn't going to start if he hasn't improved since 16 or 17, so he will be riding the bench at the D1 while your 17 year old guy is getting reps and improving physically. Then the following year your son can sign D1 if he just needed time. Not to mention JUCO guys usually get more money. I think I solved the problem!