How many Good Hitting Kids become Good High School Players?

There are no absolutes. If he works hard and has the skills you see in him, then success in HS is a real possibility.

I would be curious to know how many of the posters sons were standout players as youngsters? And how many became standouts after puberty ? I would imagine that most good players were better than others since they were young. My son has always been small for his age but has always been one of the better players he's in 8th grade so he's not done growing yet, I hope anyway I think the smaller kids have to work harder to do things right and don't just get by on brute strength.

It is true that many kids who are standouts in youth ball become stars in HS. However, the opposite is often true, as well. Sometimes the "stars" in youth ball are simply the kids who matured early, so they are bigger and stronger than the others. These kids often stop growing early (usually in middle school), and the "regular sized" kids begin to pass them by.Often, those "monster" 11 year olds turn out to be just average size when they are 17-18 years old. The kids who work the hardest have the best chance for success in HS, regardless of size. Hope your son keeps pluggin'!

BTW, my youngest, who was one of the "shrimps" who was often overlooked in youth ball is now 6'4" 200 lbs and plays Div. I college ball.

I would be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of our sons were impact players from a young age.

However, I would also say that a significant number of young impact players don't contiunue in the game. Some defect to other sports, some rely on innate athleticism or early strength and never learn the fundamentals ---- and those players get weeded out pretty fast when they move to the 90' field.

Folks sometimes talk like ALL the impact players at the LL level are the kids who are big for their age.

That's only part of the picture. Some of those early impact players are normal or even small kids.

Some are the ones who "study" the game for better way to say it. The kids who can imitate the batting stance of nearly every major league stud in their era because they watch and mimic what they see.

Some of the kids are just naturally talented and even though they are not the biggest on the team have plenty of athletic skill to accomodate them.

Regardless of WHY they were good in LL - they will all have to make those leaps to keep progressing and being good at the next level. But more important, they have to have the desire to do so.

Z-Dad:

Baseballdad1228 and JDsDad have made good points. Smaller stature players must compensate for being smaller than their larger, often more powerful, teammates and competitors.

Often, to compensate, the smaller player will hone their skills to be consistent and precise. They sharpen their minds to improve their ability to handle the challenging mental aspect of the game...in other words, they work hard on those factors over which they have control.

I've seen many instances of a young, larger, powerful, player rely solely on his comparitively superior brute strength to get by, and while doing so, ignores the very important skills and mental side of the game. As a result, I've seen littler players, as measured as a complete player, surpass these larger players. The little guys were dedicated and the larger guys were lazy.

If you are smaller, you must approach the game from a much different perspective than a larger player. If the smaller player has done everything that he can to excel, then you have to take advantage of every opportunity handed to you and be successful. The smaller player, if given the choice, should also gravitate towards the open minded coach too.

Tell your friend's kid to be smart, work hard, and go get'em!

When my son was in Little League, the local league had an American and a National division. Each division ran an all-star team for each age grouping, 14 per team, 28 kids in all.

At this point, 11-12 kids from that Little League class are on rosters for their public school varsity teams, and maybe 2-3 more play for private school teams. So, roughly half of those who were all star Little League players went on to play at the high school level. Bear in mind that the high school teams often carry 18-20 players, so a lot of the half who make the team never really play much.

Most of the others weren't ever cut. They just moved on to other things over the years. Some lost interest in baseball or discovered other things they cared more about. Others saw their limitations and gave up because they didn't see a future for themselves in baseball. A few tried out for JV and got cut 1-2 times, then gave it up.

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. I got some more knowledge. Basically his mother is concerned that the kid might be missing out by not immersing in other sports. (Now this kid loves baseball so I don't think that is not a problem.) But she also doesn't want to not develop a natural talent if there is one. I think this is why she asked her husband if there is any predictive merit being skilled at a young age has to later on.

Wish I could ask MLB hitters if they felt they had "hitting skill" when they were young. It just seems to me that great hitters rely on hand to eye coordination and technique and size and brute strength play a little less of a factor. Oh, this kid will work hard at it but I guess the feeling is any kid can also but that might not take em far if there is no natural talent. And is this little league natural talent real useful for later or just fleeting?

The test comes when 90mph fastballs are mixed with nasty breakin' balls. Little League hitting (and other) talent doesn't predict much IMO.

Z-Dad:

Welcome aboard the HSBBW! Excuse me for not doing that earlier.

I think if this kid loves baseball and is dedicated to it then that is what he should concentrate on.

Use it, or lose it so they say.

One word of caution though...baseball coaches tend to put a premium on height, especially as the players get older...this may or may not hinder your friend's son's success in baseball...just something to consider when deciding which sport to pursue.

I would say height matters less in baseball than any other major sport. No s...er isn't a major sport.

Without exception, every starter on my son's pretty decent varsity baseball team (9-1), was a all star since they were 11 years old on LL. The pecking order has changed a little, but they were all very good at a younger age.

But, that is only 9 players spread over 3 years. There were roughly 36 all star players and many of them have left the sport. From my son's 12 year old allstar team, only 50% continued to play through HS.

Z-Dad.....you've been given a lot of good answers. My son has a natural gift....offensively....quick wrists, bat speed....the first Little League practice he attended....the coaches were all over him.....and his offensive stats have spoken well for the coaches' predictions.....so yes....it can most definitely be a predictor of success....but as others have posted....what level of success depends on a lot of variables.....all within the player himself....how he uses his talents, what other tools does he have....arm strength...speed....and how hard is he willing to work.....then there is the issue of luck.....

No gaurantees.....but certainly......sounds as if this player is off to a good start.....

Z-Dad, one follow-up in answer to your question:

I have noticed a difference between baseball and other sports.

In football, it's not unusual for the big kid who's never played before to suddenly show up one year in high school and play football, with success.

In basketball, it seems like the school teams' rosters have had 50% turnover every year from 7th grade through the varsity high school team. And the starting lineup changes markedly every year. So much of this depends on who gets their growth spurts when, how tall they grow, and how and when they mature physically (in terms of having their coordination catch up to their height).

Baseball seems unique in that the kids we identified as the "studs" when they were little more than 8 -- and forgive us, but we actually put together an AAU team at 8 1/2 -- are still the main guys years later in high school. Some grew, some didn't, but the skills of catching, throwing, and hitting seemed to keep pace. Everyone improves year to year, but those who were ahead of the pack at the start have stayed ahead.

I have to say, a kid can grow big and strong suddenly, but if he didn't start swinging a bat at a young age and learn to hit tougher pitching incrementally over the years, the odds of him suddenly showing up for high school tryouts and hitting 80+ mph fastballs and off-speed stuff seem pretty long. Fielding proficiency is also a function of repetition over years of play and practice. And basic game savvy --knowing the rules and situations and doing the right thing when it's time -- can't be learned in a day, either.

Baseball is a complex sport requiring not just raw athleticism, but also precision skills and smarts. I definitely feel that those who pursue it from a young age have a strong advantage, and those who wait to get into it, or who "take a break" and try to come back, will have a tough time catching up. So yes, the kids who are the best players in Little League will tend to be the best players later on. Maybe they never really master hitting the curve ball -- and really, how many ever do? -- but they do tend to stay at the head of the pack.

Great post Midlo

Midlo Dad:

I agree with JDsDad...that is a great post.

Real hard to argue with your logic and observations. Nice job!

Midlodad,
Great post! Baseball is a game that takes years to develop your skills, and even at a very young age, for the knowledgeable baseball person, one can usually pick out those who will eventually move ahead, even amoung a team of very talented players regardless of height, weight.

The two players we talked about in a pm (Dave Adams and Shane Geisslinger), both position players, were the smallest ones on our team at 10,11,12,13. But you knew they were special.

They were two out of just a few who now play beyond HS.

According to DK, they are not so little anymore.

In my experience, the kids that played year round baseball on competitive teams are the same ones with starting positions on the high school teams. The little leaguers that were better than most of the other kids due to physical size at 11-12 years old have either been cut from the program as others have caught up and paseed them by or have moved to sports such as football and basketball where size plays a greater role in success.

I’m bringing this old topic up because I’ve searched and this seems to most closely address the question I have (despite the title). My friend and I were recently discussing how young boys will often “catch up” as they grow and go through puberty. We both had examples of kids who were almost the same size at 11 years old that they were at 14, and also the kids who grew a foot and a half taller during the same period.

However, when we distinguished between the youth who is good due to physical size, and the youth who is good due to pure athleticism, we were left wondering. We were referring to some particular kids who are among the smaller kids on their teams, but they have fast bats, strong arms, incredible speed, coordination and range – not just "good" but the kind of kids who make you go “WOW.” Will the kid with this athletic gift tend to retain the upper hand over the years, or, in your experience, does the less-coordinated kid generally close the gap when he matures, assuming equal training and devotion to the sport? I posed the theory that early athleticism may also be a form of “physical maturity,” and that these kids just happened to reach it earlier than others, and that many of the less athletic kids will eventually catch and pass these early athletes. But we think it just as possible that the general rule is that if a child exhibits exceptional natural athleticism early on, they’ll likely continue to be an exceptional athlete, even if their genetic makeup dictates that they’ll be a small athlete.

What do you think? I’ve seen references on this board about the young “stud” who was physically more mature than his peers at an early age – do you think this is all about size, or is it also about the miniature “beast” athlete? Is the incredibly fast, strong, coordinated 7 year old ultimately going to be an incredibly fast, strong, coordinated 18 year old, or is it just as likely that he will no longer be exceptional because he was only advanced for his age and others will catch up?

By the way, MidloDad makes an excellent point above that baseball is complex and, thus, skill and smarts developed from a young age are just as important as raw athleticism, but that’s why I want you to assume similar skills and smarts development. I know every kid is different, but do you think either of the following is a general rule: (a) Kids who show early exceptional athletic giftedness are likely to continue to outpace their peers after puberty, or (b) Exceptional early displays of athleticism are generally only signs of early athletic maturity. Hmmmm???

(a) under the conditions that the athletic kid has a solid work ethic/desire and stays healthy.

IMO, kids who show exceptional athletic giftedness will generally continue to stay ahead in athleticism. Kids who physically mature early and have good athleticism (but not exceptional) are the ones who stand out when they are young but the pack catches up. Sometimes thier athleticism can be mistaken for exceptional due to the way they stand out at the early ages.

Here's what I have observed:

Kids that have baseball sense - good instincts - seem to keep it.

Who will be able to hit a curve ball, a change up and a fastball at 17 is difficult to predict at 11. You just don't know who will be able to recognize those pitches.

Some kids get much faster after puberty, and some don't.

There are those perennial all stars, but there are also those who flame out early, and those who pick up steam late. That's one of the things which makes it fun to watch kids over the years.

My son's LL all-star team was one of the best in the state. They only went as far as regions since the regional champion made the LLWS. I predicted four players would play high school ball. It turned out to be five. The fifth had a better attitude by high school. Four of them were all-conference in high school. Three have gone on to college ball.

All twelve players were all-conference in some sport in high school. For some, even in LL baseball wasn't their favorite sport. But all of them could outmuscle or outrun the small field. Life was different for several of them on the 60/90.

Looking back, enjoy the game. Pay attention to what is needed to succeed this year and what will be needed next year. You can't control size. You can control strength and ability to execute the fundamentals. Then the kid has the passion or he doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Z-Dad:

... Does great hand to eye coordination before puberty carry over? Or does hitting skill at a young age have absolutely no predictive value at all? Again this kid isn't big or tall.

I don't think it has to do with hand-eye coordination. What I have found is that the kids who are bigger at an early age do not need to work as hard as the smaller kid. The big kid can put a bad swing on it and still get a hit, whereas the smaller player has to square it up to get a hit. Then puberty hits and the small kid grows and the balls he squares up now are driven for doubles and HRs. Generally speaking.

quote:

kills and smarts development. I know every kid is different, but do you think either of the following is a general rule: (a) Kids who show early exceptional athletic giftedness are likely to continue to outpace their peers after puberty, or (b) Exceptional early displays of athleticism are generally only signs of early athletic maturity. Hmmmm??

The answer is that both statements can prove true, and neither are generally always correct!

I've seen many gifted athletes (A - group) show early and stay leading the pack. While, early bloomers (B - group)that some thought were exceptionally athletic, have been passed by during puberty. Much of the discussion can be confused by semantics.

I have seen early hitting skills; i.e.; great balance, fast hands, ability to center the ball of all the hard throwers, follow a player through many levels. That, even though he would never be mentioned amongst the best athletes.

I think I agree with Prime9, although if I HAD to pick one over the other, I'd lean toward (a). There's probably not a general rule - an exceptionally athletic kid might've just got the hang of it earlier than his peers (the early bloomer, even though he might not be the obvious manchild), or it could just as likely be a sign of great things to come. With any particular kid, only time will tell which category he falls into. On the other hand, I do think an exceptional young athlete probably has a higher probability of being at least a good athlete (in some sport, baseball or not) when he/she is older. Assuming work ethic, passion, desire, etc.

I also think Cabbagedad hit it on the head: sometimes a "good" athlete looks exceptional because he/she matured early, but it turns out that others catch up, and then there are those young athletes that look exceptional, and keep looking exceptional as they grow up. Again, only time will tell. I just wondered if anyone had a strong opinion or argument for either proposition as a general rule, or if someone believes there is a way to distinguish between the early bloomer (other than size) and the truly gifted.

quote:

I also think Cabbagedad hit it on the head: sometimes a "good" athlete looks exceptional because he/she matured early, but it turns out that others catch up, and then there are those young athletes that look exceptional, and keep looking exceptional as they grow up. Again, only time will tell. I just wondered if anyone had a strong opinion or argument for either proposition as a general rule, or if someone believes there is a way to distinguish between the early bloomer (other than size) and the truly gifted.

Very difficult to tell who will be a late bloomer. The exeptionally gifted is fairly obvious. Usually the early bloomer is obvious, but there are exceptions.

A big chubby 12 or 13 year old kid hit a baseball out of a Major League Park. He is still doing it at age 27. Prince Fielder! He was a good hitting kid that became a good hitting Major Leaguer... and a very rich one. He is proof of why hitting is the number one tool.

Hit and Hit with Power = 2 tools

vs

Run, Throw and Field = 3 tools

The first two tools are enough to be a first round pick. The other three tools require one of the first two to become a first round pick. Just the way things are, today. No sense in fighting it!

Run, throw and Field are very important... If you can hit!

Looking back, the kids who stood out in little league are now the every day starters on the varsity team minus a few who got to HS and never pursued it at that point. Early skill very much does translate into future projectability for the most part. Even back in little league days we often talked about how good the HS team would be when they got there. There have been a few exceptions but in general it was fairly predictable.

quote:

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man:
Looking back, the kids who stood out in little league are now the every day starters on the varsity team minus a few who got to HS and never pursued it at that point. Early skill very much does translate into future projectability for the most part. Even back in little league days we often talked about how good the HS team would be when they got there. There have been a few exceptions but in general it was fairly predictable.

That may very well be the template at your school, but its not the template across the country.

The field of intersted AND skilled players narrows greatly once the kids get onto the big field. There's alot more peer pressure at the LL level then 13+, so the kids just don't have it in themselves fade away.

In our town (3 little leagues, 2 high schools) only 5 of the kids on my son's 12 yo allstar team played in HS and two played in college. However just about all of his 13 yo babe ruth all star teamates played HS baseball.

I might add the two kids that had succesful HS careers and played in college were not the "top" 5 or 6 players in the league when the allstar voting was done.

"GOOD" is all relative... good against the best in the Nation, good against the best in the State, good against the best in the Region, good against the best in the league or city??

I agree, baseball athleticism - especially at an early age is a plus and the difference in skill level (early) is obvious. But, IMO the real test of time is continued INTEREST, not athleticism. That's how late bloomers and unknowns become known, their baseball skill, abilities and work ethic at 16-18U.

GED10DaD

7

quote:

In our town (3 little leagues, 2 high schools) only 5 of the kids on my son's 12 yo allstar team played in HS and two played in college. However just about all of his 13 yo babe ruth all star teamates played HS baseball.

I might add the two kids that had succesful HS careers and played in college were not the "top" 5 or 6 players in the league when the allstar voting was done.

In my experience, yours is a typical representation of what happens in just about "Anytown," USA when it comes to baseball.

quote:

I agree, baseball athleticism - especially at an early age is a plus and the difference in skill level (early) is obvious. But, IMO the real test of time is continued INTEREST, not athleticism. That's how late bloomers and unknowns become known, their baseball skill, abilities and work ethic at 16-18U.

This has been my observation as well.

My experience has been that the best players in LL were the best players in high school. This applies to about 4 age groups that I witnessed to some extent.

Most, if not all, of these players not only had early talent but they all worked year around on their games. IMO natural talent plus hard work equals success.