high school readiness

Give me a break. There are thousands and thousands of kids who came up through LL and are playing in HS (and the MLB) for that matter.

Seems like the unknowledgeable few want to keep bringing this up. The athletes rise to the top no matter where they came from, period end of story. Stop this nonsense.

If a kid learns to throw properly and swing the bat properly during those years he will be fine.

The more players I watch progress from youth baseball to high school baseball and beyond, the more I realize how little those 12 and under years matter.

Edit:
Obviously, I voted no. In my opinion, a good athlete could learn to hit and throw on his own and not even play organized ball until after 12.

While I don't think it matters much I will say that my son experienced both when 12U. He played Cal ripken which was primarily still 46'/60'. At the same time he was on a team put together to play in Cooperstown so he was learning the 50'/70' game at the same time, especially after the end of the Cal Ripken season. That fall he played "Step-up" which was played on the 90' diamond to prepare for Babe ruth the following year. The cooperstown experience did help him prepare for it somewhat but he would have learned it anyways through "step-up" and the following year with Babe ruth and school ball.

I will state that I think the game is more exciting on the 50/70 field and like that Cal Ripken League realized that a lot of the kids are getting too big at 11 & 12 for 60' diamonds and started allowing leagues to switch to the 50'/70' diamonds. Their main world Series for 12U kids is now played on the 50/70 diamond.

What are open and closed bases?

I played LL with short bases (I don't remember how far they were), and by the time I was 13 and into senior league (90ft bases, 60'6" mound), I struggled. Then the next year when I was 14, I was ripping every pitcher a new a-hole.

For me at least, it took a year to adjust after LL. I don't think its a matter of the distance the bases are though, its that you are bigger, stronger, and more experienced relative to the other kids.

quote:

I will state that I think the game is more exciting on the 50/70 field

My son played both open (lead offs) and closed (no lead offs) and I agree that open bases is 'better' baseball; more fun, more exciting, more involving...However, the question is 'does it matter by HS' and I would have to say 'no'.

My son plays small HS baseball. Our 3B this year will be a kid that never play organized baseball on the small field. He's fine. He's picked up the game at 13, and at 16, he can start at the small HS level. He would proably make the team at almost any HS. No one can tell he's only been playing for a couple of years...(and, no, he's not an athletic freak of nature.)

Makes no difference in the long run. We have middle school ball here in NC and it did make a difference for many of the 7th graders, but by the time they hit the 8th grade, they had caught up.

Only difference I see is for the 13/14's ... if the kids they play with/against came up through the same youth sports programs, it won't make any difference at all. If not, they may struggle for a year.

I don't like the little league expanded (super-sized) strike zone though. Some may disagree, but I think it encourages over-throwing. The base path sizes don't matter at all and leading off/base stealing is a skill that is easily learned (but often never mastered, regardless of system you came up through).

obtw: We didn't play LL in our town, so the kids were leading off from the age of 10 on ...

I agree that is has no bearing. The only thing it might do is keep the game a little more interesting and keep kids playing baseball versus going on to other sports. We have seem to lose a lot of kids to Lacrosse in this area.

I've seen kids who only played 46/60 ball (Little League) through age 12 move on to HS ball with success, but they do have a difficult time catching up to those who have played 50/70 in their 11u and 12u years.

Partly this is because the 46/60 field is simply too small, especially at the 12u level, so the players are not really challenged to improve. A SS who throws poorly, for example, can get by at 46/60 dimensions but not from the 50/70 dimensions. So, on the larger field he is forced to improve his techniques earlier on in order to stay in the game.

Also, the competition level is far better in travel ball generally -- though with the proliferation of youth teams now, there are indeed travel teams who are not any better than your typical rec league team -- but on balance, a travel player will have more meaningful experience and thus be faster to make the many decisions involved in playing the game without hesitation.

I also think the LL jump from 46/60 to 60/90 all in one step runs a lot of discouraged 13's out of baseball entirely. It works so much better to step up to 50/70 first. Those kids are better prepared when the time comes to go to 60/90.

There will always be those who are "late bloomers", either in their ability or perhaps in their level of interest in the game. Plenty of kids never play travel and do well in HS. But I don't think anyone could argue with a straight face that the kids who played in a quality travel program didn't have a leg up. It doesn't give them more athletic ability, but it does help with building proper technique habits and with learning the mental side of the game.

Baseball is not like football, where you see kids come out for the first time their junior years of HS or you see bartenders become NFL kickers in a week's time. In football, if you're willing to throw yourself in front of an oncoming train, we have a jersey for you, and besides, the roster sizes are often practically unlimited. Baseball in many ways more closely remembers golf. It is a precision game that requires a rare combination of knowledge, decision making, skill, conditioning and athleticism. The last one has to be innate, but the other things are learned incrementally over a period of years.

To me it always comes down to preparedness. I want my son to be the best prepared he can be when he steps onto the HS field. I want him to be the frontrunner for the position. I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

Travel allows this. Superior technique, skills and experience allow this that are gained in good travel teams. Why would you want your child to be behind the curve when they don't even know where the curve is?

IMO it makes absolutely no difference for HS baseball whether a kid played 40/60 or 50/70.
Reasons:
1. Baseball is not rocket science. A position player can learn to take leads in a few practices.
If he didn't learn where to throw the ball in little league, he may never learn. If he can hit he can take all the time he needs.
2. Middle school baseball gives a kid experience if needed.
3. IMO a player improves his game in the off season. If he a good player who works in the off season while playing 40/60 he will be a better player than a good 50/70 player who doesn't work in the off season.

My son's HS team last year had maybe one kid who played travel before 13. His school is the largest classification in the state. They lost in the state final game this year.

No doubt things are changing fast but talent is talent regardless where you played when young. The most important thing is to work to improve the talent.

quote:

I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

Travel allows this. Superior technique, skills and experience allow this that are gained in good travel teams. Why would you want your child to be behind the curve when they don't even know where the curve is?

I think those are very, very good questions. If all we are talking about his high school, I won't argue against your approach if being ahead in baseball is what those years are about. I would argue against it for other reasons, however.
In the bigger world of competitive baseball, my answer to your views and questions changes dramatically. As they move up the baseball pyramid, eventually, nearly everyone of our sons will need to do that: catch up and knock somebody out of an established spot. Most often that will be in college or Milb.
The problem with it occurring then, for the first time, is they are managing many, many other issues without the support system that he relied upon before college. If your son has always had a competitive advantage because he played travel, year round and had more repetitions, what happens when he gets to college where he is competing with other similar players, or players who did not do that but are the infamous late bloomer/two sport guy who takes off when he starts getting daily reps on a year round basis?
Having my son enjoy playing multiple sports through high school, having him learn to compete in every sport for playing time, and having him earn every single inning in high school, college and Summer wood bat leagues had to help him have an advantage when he got to Milb, sat for the first 3 weeks, got a start when a starter missed the travel bus, went 4-5 and start 118 of the next 122 games.
Sometimes they are much better off finding the curve on their own, getting around it and proving to themselves they can. Sometimes we are better off realizing they are better off.

I was talking about HS. I don't see any reason to give somebody else the advantage. When he graduates he will also be as prepared as he can be. I have no idea what he will need to be prepared for at that time, baseball or probably something else, but he will be prepared. Giving someone an advantage over you when it isn't necessary is kind of silly to me. Why wouldn't you study and take the prep courses for your SAT? Why not be as prepared as you can for every endeavor you undertake in life? To do anything else is just lazy IMO. Hard work and achieving your goals is good for every aspect in life. Youth baseball is no different, especially since they love it.

If players are athletic and competitive, our experience is they love the sport they are doing at the time.
My view is that there can be paralysis from analysis.
A year round player on a well coached travel team is going to be better prepared on the first day of the HS season than the kid who played football and/or basketball and shows up in football/basketball shape ready to play baseball.
The kid who takes the SAT prep courses will be better prepared for the SAT.
Neither means they will perform better when the test/game occurs. Neither means they will compete better when they move to another level and whatever advantage they might have had in HS due to more reps is removed.
Our son attended a small high school where nearly every baseball player also played another sport. They started practice around January 25 each year, except for the basketball guys. With a good HS coach, by March 1, they could compete with most any HS in our area, many of whom had only year round players.
Reading this board has certainly convinced me that many parents feel playing year round at earlier ages provides an edge and provides an advantage, or puts someone who does not at a disadvantage. On day one, I readily agree it does.
I just don't buy it over the longer view, once players are taking reps and practicing in a competitive environment and competing on equal terms.
In fact, while I did not want our son to play, I can readily recognize his playing football provided a mental toughness, a mental courage, a mental intensity and a mental strength he would never had just playing baseball.
When the playing fields evened in terms of reps, my personal view is his mental strength was at least as useful, and perhaps even more of an advantage, than any physical advantage he might have gained playing year round baseball.

This sort of discussion is all new to me---when my last guy came into HS back in the early 90's he went direct from LL fields (small) to HS diamonds (full size) there was no problem---in my day there were no fields with intermediate dimensions and I had no problem

Parenst worry too much today--just let the kids play baseball---they will find their way

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman :
I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

I don't know how you can control that.

Sometimes the HS coach has "his guys"

All the player can do is have some talent, work hard at his game get some good coaching along the way, play the game the right way and carry himself the right way on the ballfield. My son was a well coached, fundamentally sound player who kept having to prove himself and pay his dues on JV to become a starter on the varsity level despite playing on all--stars and travel teams and receiving good coaching. He should've been a varsity starter long before he earned his spot and that opinion was shared with many other parents (maybe except the ones who's sons he was competing for playing time with )who watched him play but the only voice that counted was the head coach's. He was the one he had to prove it to. When he did beat out the established players to win a starting spot, he was an impact player who was well prepared to play against some of the best players in the county and around the state and held his own quite well.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

zomby, are you sure I posted that? That doesn't sound like me!

I thought I was agreeing with TR and you!

i played LL, both my son's played LL. for many reasons i like the 50/70 much better. i never worried about my kids development,i wanted all the kids to develop. i think you'd see more kids playing longer if they were'nt thrown into the 60/90 from 45/60. or if your a glass half empty guy,you'd just lose them sooner........but i doubt it.

if your a player your a player, you'll be fine. my thoughts are how many struggle at 13 and move to another sport,that may have been player's ?

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

zomby, are you sure I posted that? That doesn't sound like me!

I thought I was agreeing with TR and you!

LOL...No, I corrected it....call it pilot error.

quote:

I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

That quote was me Zomby.

I know that you can't control what a coach will do. Wouldn't even try. But if you have the talent and the skills from the first day, you have a much better chance of being one of the coaches guys.

Why not be prepared? Two talented guys go out for SS. One has better skills, who gets the job?

I agree Doughnutman ... Why not be prepared. I think in my son's case, had he not prepared to compete at the varsity level, his raw skills alone might not have been enough to be a starter at that level. He may have just platooned or come off the bench. He stepped up when he got his opportunity,, earned it and didn't relinquish it.

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman:
Why not be prepared? Two talented guys go out for SS. One has better skills, who gets the job?

I know a high school senior that played basketball and golf his first three HS seasons, no baseball at all. He is a great natural athlete with incredible quickness, speed, and hand-eye coordination. He is playing SS in the fall HS league and will play baseball as a senior. Guess who gets the SS job?

This kid with natural talent and upside will, and within 2-3 weeks after basketball season ends, he will be the best player on the field. Natural talent will win over all the hard-working year-round baseball players.

I agree ball park franks. How about if the two guys are nearly equal? Both bring great talent to the position? At some schools, there is talent at nearly every position. Kinda like college.

I just don't get why people think that players with the most talent shouldn't have the best skills? Wouldn't you want that as a coach? Which would you rather have, a talented kid or a talented kid with superior skills?

Seems like a no brainer to me.

Doughnetman:

I can tell you one thing for sure: You are in for lots of surprises. I hope they are good ones.

I love surprises.

But I still don't know why a coach would rather have a talented kid over an equally talented kid with great skills.

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman:
I love surprises.

But I still don't know why a coach would rather have a talented kid over an equally talented kid with great skills.

If I read your posts correctly, you are associating "great skills" will playing year round when you are 12-13-14. I don't feel the same way.
Baseball is a marathon. It isn't where you start. It is where your son ends.
I admire the fact that you want to provide your son every opportunity to succeed.
Great skills are only good in HS if they continue to improve. From our experience, it is what happens from ages 15-19 that makes the difference in baseball, no matter what field you played on when he was 12/13/14 and no matter whether he played multiple sports at a high level or travel ball year round.

I think it has more to do with where the best competition is playing in the 11-14 age range. In some cities/counties there is no choice between LL (closed bases) and Pony (open bases). Therefore, the best competition is all funneled into the only available program.

In Tampa, we have both to choose from, plus some Cal Ripken/Babe Ruth teams formed outside of LL and Pony. Pony League happens to be where a majority of the high school players play their pre high school organized ball. This does not say that players who play open bases end up doing better. All it says is Pony happens to draw the more competitive players in our area.

Infielddad,
I have never said play year round. Play 6+ months. However long it takes. Talent being equal or very close, the guy with the skills gets the job. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.

Ignoring the youth angle, doesn't it get harder as you go up the ladder? Talent starts equaling out? Have the skills and produce or you will be replaced. Potential will get you a look. Production will get you a promotion.

Or am I mistaken?

quote infieldad
In fact, while I did not want our son to play, I can readily recognize his playing football provided a mental toughness, a mental courage, a mental intensity and a mental strength he would never had just playing baseball.
--------------------------------------------------

with talent being equal,i'll take the football player. they seem to all be just a little bit tougher than the rest. if you look around most high school team's i think you'll see this is true.

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman:
Infielddad,
I have never said play year round. Play 6+ months. However long it takes. Talent being equal or very close, the guy with the skills gets the job. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.

Ignoring the youth angle, doesn't it get harder as you go up the ladder? Talent starts equaling out? Have the skills and produce or you will be replaced. Potential will get you a look. Production will get you a promotion.

Or am I mistaken?

I'm sorry if I am not understanding what you are saying. I guess I am not understanding the distinction you are trying to make, in terms of this thread. You keep referring to equally talented players and then qualify that one has "great skills."
I don't understand and cannot visual players of "equal" talent but who have such a distinct difference in "skill" level.
In terms of this thread and your prior posts, I inferred you were describing there is talent and skills superiority that comes travel ball and/or open bases at a younger age, 12-14.
So far as what happens up the ladder, you will find in Milb that playing time associates with bonus and draft position. The higher the draft position and larger the bonus, the more chances you are given to prove you cannot play and produce.
The lower the pick and smaller the bonus, you are given a few chances to prove you can play.
In college and Summer Wood bat leagues, our son's experience was those who produce will play, those who don't sit.
At each level, the players are very talented. At each level, the players are skilled. At each level, the playing time depends on your mental approach, being better tomorrow than you were today, and producing when opportunities arise.
Plenty of talented players with skills do it. As you move up, more and more do not.

I am one of those who says it doesn't matter - and perhaps have a different basis for that opinion. I coached Pony Baseball (13/14 YOs) in an area where there were two geographies feeding the league. One played Bronco (open bases) the other played LL (closed bases). From a coaches perspective, it took about a month for there to be no difference between the kids. The kids that played LL weren't dumb - they knew the differences - it was just a matter of re-training their instincts.

To me, it was harder to transition from the 54 foot mound to the 60 foot mound in HS than to go from LL to Pony... but that is a different discussion.

What fields kids play on and sometimes even the competition kids face doesn't have an overwhelming bearing on the price of rice in China imho... let me elaborate...

I have two sons but most only know me through one of my sons. When they were young, I would see them both make plays in the field that I didn't generally see other kids making. I also saw them hitting balls that I generally did not see other kids hitting. Namely, I always noticed that when the velocity level rose, many of the kids who may have had the highest batting averages against lower competition did not seem to catch up to it anymore. When curve balls and changeups were introduced, another whole level of weeding-out was added to the mix.

The main thing I saw separating my two sons was their attitude. One was hot-tempered and easily discouraged although very talented. The other was gifted with his temperment and easily competed up on all the teams the older one played. For many years, my younger one was the shortstop/pitcher and his older brother the second baseman. Looking back, I believe in my heart that fields, which team you traveled for, which equipment you had available, which coaches you played for and so forth, had little to do with things.

IMHO, I think players need two basic things to succeed - a modicum of athletic ability (by LUCK of their genetics) and desire to improve. The desire part generally comes from a deep love and passion for the game imho. Every once in a blue moon, you'll see some players who are so athletically gifted that they can "out-athlete" their desire. You even see some of these in the big leagues today. I believe that the desire part catches up to everyone eventually however.

Back to the debate in this thread....

I think most people relate things to their own experiences and often extrapolate backwards incorrectly imho why things may have turned out the way they did.

For example, we'll see people announcing their sons have signed to a prestigious college/conference and then the advice that sometimes follows from there is... kids need to play against the best competition (e.g., East Cobb), kids need to play on the most exclusive travel teams (e.g., Midland), kids need to have the most expensive equipment, kids need to have elite instruction, kids need to fly all over the country to all the prestigious events, etc, etc, in order to achieve the goal of playing for college X. Implied in all of this of course is that it is the ingenious parent who actually produces the talent people see on the field. Obviously, parents are needed to reproduce, facilitate things, and encourage. Whether all the other advantages one may be able to provide because of status to afford things or location is debatable imho.

I think the production/readiness part is more simply due to the combination of genetics (luck imho) and desire. I won't argue that some of the other factors mentioned above like playing against elite competition or on age-appropriate fields won't help things, these simply are not the most important things imho.

Great Post CD, I agree.

The bottom line to me is.. It's not where you play, it's who you are that matters.

quote:

I think it has more to do with where the best competition is playing in the 11-14 age range.

I'm just keeping the conversation on track. 11-14 is not preteen. The conversation is about "preteen." It's very important where a kid plays at 13/14 years old. Those are the two years leading into high school where the player needs to learn and polish the skills he didn't use in LL.

Unless I missed it I'm surprised no one has mentioned the part physically maturing/puberty plays in success at older ages. My son was 5'0" when he was twelve. What he had at twelve was good fundamental mechanics and a passion to compete. He would have the same attributes regardless of the field size or rules. And I can't compare a 5'0" twelve year old with the 6'1", 170 sixteen year old he is now.

Note: My son played LL and USSSA when he was eleven and twelve. The only value I saw to USSSA was getting the all-star team competition ready rather than developing future players due to the rules. We played the potential LL all-star team in a USSSA Sunday doubleheader league. I believe my son would be the same player he is today without playing any preteen 50/70 ball.

Nice post CD.

I think the area you play in may dictate whether the local league or travel ball may be the most benefical for you. There are areas where league ball is still competitive, while others are really weak.

You cannot convince me that playing 13U in travel, seeing 80+ fastballs, good off-speed pitches, and good defense does not better prepare you for making the HS team than playing in a league with 60'ish fastballs, loopy breaking pitches, and average defense.

I think there needs to be some age distinction of what you are talking about. 9-11 may not be that big of a deal, but when you get to 12-14, playing challenging competition should be your focus.

To say that not playing on bigger bases at an earlier age has no effect let me reply.

Players get better by bigger and more challenging scenerios. People who make good players in High school and in college will generally have played more challenging baseball in their 11-14 year old ages. By this I mean that talented kids who are introduced to the bigger diamond earlier will have an advantage over those who wait.

Playing on the bigger diamond requires a general greater strive for athleticism that was not pushed while playing on the smaller diamond. The sooner kids get an idea for athleticism, the greater advantage they have as they get older. Bigger diamonds require greater running speed and endurance, greater bat speed, stronger arms, more accurate arms (especially the pitcher) and above all a new resepct for just how a bigger field completely changes the game. Kids, especially at the thirteen year old age realize real quick that they have to pump it up drastically to still be good. Pitchers learn the importance of offspeed pitches better and sooner. they also learn how important it is to get that first batter out and save the arm.

When my son went from the 48/70 field to the 60.5/90 last year he realized he lacked general athleticism (speed and strength). So, since then he started swinging with a -3 bat, doing push-ups and pull-ups (lots of them!) and running. In my opinion, he will or should have an advantage all through high school because he is ahead (not as much work) and thus the work and time he does put in will put him farther ahead had he not done it. What we must always do is base this judgment from how a single player would have performed against his own self had he either done it or not done it and not base the judgment from one kid with another. For example-

Will a kid be better entering High school who has 2 previous years of training and experience on the big diamond or none at all? Of coarse he will benefit from the 2 years experience over none at all. So now we must ask- If I could clone the same exact kid and let one play on the small diamond while the other plays on the big diamond, who will excell in high school? Will the less experienced clone catch up to the more experienced clone? Perhaps, but the more avdanced player has the odds in his favor.

There is a reason why USA baseball dominates on the world level. That reason is because of more challenging baseball competition through the youth years- how challenging a youth player competes has a direct relation to how he will play in HS and immediatley post HS. Baseball is about three things-

1. Using the innate talent and learning how to refine it (genetic ability).

2. Experience. The more challenging the experience the better the players advantage will always be

3. Athleticism. The stronger and more conditioned you are the better you become.

All three of these things give you advantages over those who do not have these traits. The bigger fields at the younger years does, in my opinion, has a greater effect on shaping a baseball player at the beginning and through High School. If I am wrong, we should eliminate the more challenging fields from youth level baseball.

I would say that in the short term being ready for High School ball is very important. Know how to run open bases, get a feel for 60 feet rather than 50, strengthen your hitting etc. That first HS tryout is important. If you are on a competitive middle school team (or travel during those years) the high school will have already heard about you. The HS coach's job is to win games, not develop talent or skills. That is the JV coach's job - or at least provide an incubator for talent/skills/physical maturity that isn't quite ready for Varsity.

In the long term, we all know how much we parents like to say, 4 year letterman, varsity starter as a freshman etc... but does the college scout care? They are looking at the juniors and senors that can step onto a college field and preform from day one. (Now there are cases of redshirt freshman, which seem to me an indication of tremendous potential that the coach does not want to get away. Very fortunate/special individuals indeed.) Does it matter where the player was at 13/14? Sometimes the "big" frosh stud isn't so studly by their junior year, but the kid that grew 7 inches in 15 months is the kid everyone is talking about. The time spent on JV grew confidence and the desire to work hard. The other grew over confident, and now is wondering why things aren't falling in his lap like they used to.

Maybe the bottom line is that it is important to always be prepared for the next level. There are so many variables, control what you can.

(I know coaches are always impressed with speed. But if the kid does not have any baseball sense, what good are they? I've seen coaches try to turn track runners into pinch runners - they just couldn't develop a knowledge of the Rules of Baseball. What's the point of being at third, if the fielder catches the pop up and throws you out at first?)