CD,
Not trying to change the topic, but you brought up a good point.
Yes, it helps young players from northern states when they can go play in certain areas. Like Florida, California, Texas, Georgia, etc.
I've never liked the term "Travel" Baseball. Never liked the term "Showcase" Baseball either. Baseball is baseball! I like the term "Tournament" Baseball. Then there are high level tournaments and other tournaments. You can travel all you want and still be a bad team playing against poor competition. You can be called a showcase team and play in front of very few decision makers and with very little post tournament coverage or benefit.
"Travel" doesn't really say anything to describe quality of play. IMO, "Showcase" describes something different than an actual baseball tournament. I cringe when I hear the word "Showcase" Team.
How about "Highly Competitive Team" that plays against the top teams in the country and wants to win big tournaments? Travel and showcasing are simply byproducts of that team! They are gauranteed to get attention from the recruiters and scouting community.
Besides, scouts can see the tools and individual skills they want at a showcase event and then they want to see how the best players go about WINNING baseball games in a very competitive environment. You can learn a lot about talented players watching them compete on a team that is out to win.
BTW, there are teams that utilize their entire lineup and still plan on winning every game they play. That is because the guy sitting on the bench is a very talented player, so he is going to play.
There are tournaments that last a week and teams might play 9 or 10 games to get to the championship game. That takes a good sized roster full of a lot of talented players.
quote:Originally posted by ClevelandDad:quote:Originally posted by TPM:
I definetly agree that you don't get better by sitting, but I don't agree with people's opinions that you have to travel long distances to play the game to get better.
TPM - not trying to be a wise-guy here but you have to consider where people live. In Florida, I am sure a kid can get a competitive game right down the street.
In Ohio or Idaho or Wyoming or South Dakota or wherever in some of the vast spaces our country occupies, you might very well have to travel "long" distances to get in the "game." This is a national recruiting site and the rules that work in California, Texas, and Florida do not necessarily translate to other parts of the country.
Sorry, I was refering about for young players. Is it necessary for 8-14 year olds (pre HS) to "travel" to other parts of the country? To get better? Or does playing as much as you can (no matter where) is what is important?
Now I am coming out of the local Wal Mart and 9 and 10 year olds are collecting money so they can travel this summer out of state for tournament play. So CD, what do you suppose the reason, certainly you can travel down the street to find a good team to play against here in FL. Isn't getting better about not sitting? Again, you don't have to get better to travel long distances, you just need to play as much as you can, according to what is being said here, correct?
I think that PG said it best, you can still travel and not be that good.
Just sayin.....
I know that in my neck of the woods we regulary see teams from out of state solely because we live in mostly sparsley populated areas and the only good teams around are usually hundreds of miles away. Over here in Idaho, "travel ball" means just that- getting in the car on the weekend and traveling 150-200 miles just to play another good team.
Up in Montana and parts of Nevada it's even worse! Over the years we have played several outstanding travel teams from Montana and Nevada and their average distance to play on weekends is in the hundreds of miles. One of the great things about this "traveling" to play is that you must be focused and committed every weekend to travel those distances and try to get the wins. For these kids it's all about giving up other weekend opportunities for the love of the game. For mid-size tournaments that teams in our travel league play in against each other it is nothing for teams in the league to put a 500-1000 miles on the old odometer in a weekend tournament. There are times when I wish we lived in a more populated area and didn't have to travel to such great distances to play against other good teams, but in the end it helps us to appreciate the time spent on the field chasing the dream of baseball. There were times last year where we would play a game in one town and then that same day drive 130 miles to the neighboring city to pick up a game a few hours later. Sometimes we put 300-400 miles on the car in one day just playing other teams in non-tournament play.
Therefore I think "travel ball" is relative to where one lives. In my area of population there are only about 150 thousand people in a 100 mile radius. Finding good teams in that area is pretty slim. All the good teams can be counted on one hand in that area and you can only play them so many times before you know every player's weaknesses and strengths. Travel ball is about "new challenges" and trying to climb the ladder talent wise to get better. If I lived in a heavy metro area one could realistically never have to travel more than 100 miles and have a pretty endless line of good teams to compete against. Our travel league area is about 400 miles wide by about a 1000 miles in length. From that area we pool from a population of about 4-5 million people. Compare this to a large metro area and that area would consist of a 40 mile wide by 100 miles in length. So it is all relative. Personally I think having to travel greater distances in travel ball makes it mean more for the players and they have to be more focused and committed. After all, a regular saturday double-header is a 12 hour event most of the time around here.
Up in Montana and parts of Nevada it's even worse! Over the years we have played several outstanding travel teams from Montana and Nevada and their average distance to play on weekends is in the hundreds of miles. One of the great things about this "traveling" to play is that you must be focused and committed every weekend to travel those distances and try to get the wins. For these kids it's all about giving up other weekend opportunities for the love of the game. For mid-size tournaments that teams in our travel league play in against each other it is nothing for teams in the league to put a 500-1000 miles on the old odometer in a weekend tournament. There are times when I wish we lived in a more populated area and didn't have to travel to such great distances to play against other good teams, but in the end it helps us to appreciate the time spent on the field chasing the dream of baseball. There were times last year where we would play a game in one town and then that same day drive 130 miles to the neighboring city to pick up a game a few hours later. Sometimes we put 300-400 miles on the car in one day just playing other teams in non-tournament play.
Therefore I think "travel ball" is relative to where one lives. In my area of population there are only about 150 thousand people in a 100 mile radius. Finding good teams in that area is pretty slim. All the good teams can be counted on one hand in that area and you can only play them so many times before you know every player's weaknesses and strengths. Travel ball is about "new challenges" and trying to climb the ladder talent wise to get better. If I lived in a heavy metro area one could realistically never have to travel more than 100 miles and have a pretty endless line of good teams to compete against. Our travel league area is about 400 miles wide by about a 1000 miles in length. From that area we pool from a population of about 4-5 million people. Compare this to a large metro area and that area would consist of a 40 mile wide by 100 miles in length. So it is all relative. Personally I think having to travel greater distances in travel ball makes it mean more for the players and they have to be more focused and committed. After all, a regular saturday double-header is a 12 hour event most of the time around here.
I think that you and I have gotten this topic off track.
Travel and it's intended purpose does mean different things to different people, my opinion is and will never change, is that WHEN and WHERE you do the travel and WHO sees you that is very important.
There is another topic going on regarding paying your dues, I find it interesting, these topics are pretty much related, yet they get different responses.
Travel and it's intended purpose does mean different things to different people, my opinion is and will never change, is that WHEN and WHERE you do the travel and WHO sees you that is very important.
There is another topic going on regarding paying your dues, I find it interesting, these topics are pretty much related, yet they get different responses.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
BTW, there are teams that utilize their entire lineup and still plan on winning every game they play. That is because the guy sitting on the bench is a very talented player, so he is going to play.
PG - somehow I missed your post, but this has become a fine discussion.
I have a grandson who at 4 and 1/2 years old, appears very natural at baseball. I am going to do things differently with him.
Rule #1
Have Fun
Rule #2
Have Fun
Rule #3
Don't take things so seriously
Rule #4 - maybe the most important rule
Be on a team where all kids play just about equally.
My baseball son was lucky. My oldest son was also a good player but he did not have quite the luck or the temperment for the game frankly.
I don't see why all kids on a team cannot share playing time. It certainly won't hurt the star players one iota to rotate a few innings each game with the kids who are on the bench. Another thing I would like to see in youth baseball is perhaps somewhat smaller rosters but every kid on the team is in the batting order. If you have twelve or 13 hitters on the team, why can't every kid have his name in the batting lineup every game? Who the hell cares if that is not pure baseball? At the youth level, I want every kid on the team to play. I think that is the biggest change that we need to see in the sport. If we do that, the sport will thrive and prosper imho.
There's more than one kind of pay to play. All of our kids paid to play because we split up the costs of entering the tournaments. Therefore we felt that everyone deserved significant playing time.
The play to pay team I referred to earlier was a program where they also paid a monthly fee to the coach of the team. It was one of the stronger travel teams in our area and has had both first and second rounders as alums.
The play to pay team I referred to earlier was a program where they also paid a monthly fee to the coach of the team. It was one of the stronger travel teams in our area and has had both first and second rounders as alums.
quote:Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
If you have twelve or 13 hitters on the team, why can't every kid have his name in the batting lineup every game? Who the hell cares if that is not pure baseball? At the youth level, I want every kid on the team to play. I think that is the biggest change that we need to see in the sport. If we do that, the sport will thrive and prosper imho.
I strongly agree.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:quote:If your not playing much make sure your in a situation where you are in the summer.
I think Coach May said to find a travel team where you can get playing time.
The travel team I ran through 14u played at a fairly high, but not the highest level of competition by any means and we tried to keep the number of players such that everyone got plenty of playing time. Sometimes that resulted in scrambling to find enough players for a given tournament and having to play some kids out of position but that was preferable to having players sit any more than necessary.
We tried to get the best players we could but the one time we got a player (who left the pay to play team he was on after some parents took it over to get out of paying) who belonged at a higher level of competition than we were playing at we said we'd be happy to have him play with us and although he would have helped us be more competitive in the open tournaments we suggested that he would have no problem finding a stronger team than ours to play on. They found a stronger team for him and it worked for him and it worked for the kids we had quite a few of whom are playing in college now. The kid who we "turned down" was a first rounder in the most recent draft. We did end up picking up another kid who wasn't quite as talented from that pay to play team and ended up beating them in the semi's of our last tournament.
There are a lot of levels of travel teams and if a player wanted to sit on a high level team rather than play against a bit weaker competition that's their choice but not one I'd recommend.
Probably the most interesting thing was one parent who was absolutely honest with us that their kid was going to play on another team because they had a professional ballplayer coaching it and figured he'd get better competition. The parent said he hoped his son could still play with us when we needed him but understood that the regulars would get priority for playing time. Another parent in the exact same situation tried to hide what was happening from us so that her son would be the starter whenever he "deigned" to play with us. Why was it the exact same situation? Because it was only one player and the dad was telling us straight while the mom was lying to us about why the kid wasn't playing with us in some tournaments.
CaDad - sorry I did not comment sooner on this but this was one of the better posts in this thread imho. Love your philosophy.
Many of us take things too seriously imho. The goal at the youth level should not be about winning and losing so much but about development for each player. Yes, sports is about winning ultimately but there is no reason why that each kid on the roster should not contribute to that effort imho.
.
First of all I am not against travel ball per se, mine played, I see great opportunity there...For rural players it can be a necessity....and it is clear that it is not “either or” when it comes to play or sit at any level (rec, travel, or sponsor).…but I also believe that we as parents have to stay incredibly self vigilant and self aware… I believe that there is an incredibly fine line between using sports as a means to a bigger end…and getting so wrapped up in youth sports that we lose perspective and big picture and risk becoming those "that out of control parents" that we point to and vilify. We need to see this thing from all perspectives and take a middle ground not dwell in the extremes.
I do find ironic (if I have it right) that the “play everybody scenario” that we all bolted from into travel ball has morphed into a….“play everybody” for $ scenario. And that the teams with the big sponsors (prep scholarships) that I have to believe now attract the elite (or predictably soon will - ie basketball)…are still as reported more performance/ability based.
A story...
There is a local world class private school where the education is truly exceptional, the teachers great, the facilities magnificent, the curriculum better than most colleges and the collegiate acceptance list is a “who’s who” of the top colleges in the country.
A few years ago they quit offering accelerated classes because the parents who were paying the bills demanded that their kids had to be included...whether they qualified academically or not. The reasoning being that at $30K, they all were entitled to the exact same education, regardless of ability.
The interesting part is that when they get to these high end colleges they are no longer protected and despite a great formal education, when faced with no holds barred competition, a shocking % fold up emotionally, they come home and restart their academic careers at the local JC.
44
.
First of all I am not against travel ball per se, mine played, I see great opportunity there...For rural players it can be a necessity....and it is clear that it is not “either or” when it comes to play or sit at any level (rec, travel, or sponsor).…but I also believe that we as parents have to stay incredibly self vigilant and self aware… I believe that there is an incredibly fine line between using sports as a means to a bigger end…and getting so wrapped up in youth sports that we lose perspective and big picture and risk becoming those "that out of control parents" that we point to and vilify. We need to see this thing from all perspectives and take a middle ground not dwell in the extremes.
I do find ironic (if I have it right) that the “play everybody scenario” that we all bolted from into travel ball has morphed into a….“play everybody” for $ scenario. And that the teams with the big sponsors (prep scholarships) that I have to believe now attract the elite (or predictably soon will - ie basketball)…are still as reported more performance/ability based.
A story...
There is a local world class private school where the education is truly exceptional, the teachers great, the facilities magnificent, the curriculum better than most colleges and the collegiate acceptance list is a “who’s who” of the top colleges in the country.
A few years ago they quit offering accelerated classes because the parents who were paying the bills demanded that their kids had to be included...whether they qualified academically or not. The reasoning being that at $30K, they all were entitled to the exact same education, regardless of ability.
The interesting part is that when they get to these high end colleges they are no longer protected and despite a great formal education, when faced with no holds barred competition, a shocking % fold up emotionally, they come home and restart their academic careers at the local JC.
44.
ob44 - great thoughts and perspective.
One thing to think about...
I don't think sports is a perfect analogy for academics. None of us would expect any of our kids that we were paying hard earned money for to "sit" while other more talented kids were attending class in their place. At the high school and collegiate level academically, every kid has to play i.e., learn. Do they all get to play in the most elite classes? No, that should be based on merit imho.
With sports, I don't disagree that there are not life lessons to be learned there. I just don't think that one of those lessons has to be that some kids need to be sitting on the bench. My feelings have changed on this issue over the years. I don't think the price of rice in China will be affected if we figure out ways for all kids to play at the youth level. I don't believe that for high school ball and above however. There, kids need to learn how to compete and earn their playing time.
One thing to think about...
I don't think sports is a perfect analogy for academics. None of us would expect any of our kids that we were paying hard earned money for to "sit" while other more talented kids were attending class in their place. At the high school and collegiate level academically, every kid has to play i.e., learn. Do they all get to play in the most elite classes? No, that should be based on merit imho.
With sports, I don't disagree that there are not life lessons to be learned there. I just don't think that one of those lessons has to be that some kids need to be sitting on the bench. My feelings have changed on this issue over the years. I don't think the price of rice in China will be affected if we figure out ways for all kids to play at the youth level. I don't believe that for high school ball and above however. There, kids need to learn how to compete and earn their playing time.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
I think there’s a big difference between learning that someone needs to sit and being the kid who sits most all the time. IMO, it’s one of those rich get richer things. Those that play are more likely to get better than those who sit on the bench. They are more likely to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. They will gain more experience in reacting to situations as they happen.
I don’t think anyone believes that baseball players don’t benefit from actually playing the game. That is what it’s all about to baseball players. That is why they are called baseball “players”.
That said, I think sitting on the bench is something every player needs to experience. It builds character and can make the right player hungry. However, it’s also one of the main reasons young kids quit the game before they have had a chance to develop. It's also more "fun" to play! Often coaches use "benching" as a form of punishment. If for some it is punishment to sit, how does the kid sitting all the time feel about it?
A young kid sitting on the bench for one of the top 14U travel teams in the country might be good enough to be on the field for the 10th or 20th best team in the country. I don’t see it as a money spent thing. Even if both teams were fully sponsored and it didn’t cost the player any money to play on either team, I could understand why someone would choose to play rather than sit. At the same time, we all know someone has to sit.
At some point, most players will experience sitting. Those able to deal with that are usually well respected by coaches and teammates. Those who can’t deal with it either quit or are told to leave. IMO, this is not a process that should take place any earlier than necessary. Guess I’m saying it’s a good thing to experience sitting on the bench (for many reasons), but it’s a better thing to be on the field (for development).
Professional baseball may not be perfect, but they figured this out many years ago. Baseball players need to play! Those they are most interested in developing (have the most invested in) play, while the bench is loaded with the extra guys. Once in a while an extra guy gets his chance and makes the most of it and becomes someone that the club gets more interested in. But usually these extra guys end up released or they decide to move on in life. Then there are those who make the Big Leagues and there they learn to sit. But those guys are paid very well to sit on the bench. For the most part, the organization prefers to keep young players in the minor leagues where they are out there playing every day rather than sitting on the bench on the Big League team all year. In other words they understand the importance of playing.
Some might think it makes no sense to use professional baseball as an example. Point is… If the highest level believes playing is so important for development, why would it be any different for the lowest level or the levels in between? Granted much can be learned sitting on the bench. But baseball players are developed on the field. Some of both might be worthwhile.
IMO this also relates to college decisions. If someone is most interested in developing their playing ability for future opportunities, they should strongly consider how often they will be in the games. In other words… what is the level or the program where I am most likely to play. There actually are some that would rather sit at the power program than play at a lesser profile program. Nothing wrong with that, if that is what they want. In fact, those guys can be a great asset and are usually very well liked by their teammates. But college coaches recruit players they want on the field, playing in the games.
These are just my opinions. Some will agree, some will disagree. Very good points by everyone, good discussion!
PG, I just discovered this thread. What an insightful post!
I know Bum, Jr. has been motivated by his experience--sitting--motivated in a good way. He has worked especially hard lately to make sure this is the last time. In fact, I expect a huge summer for him.
It goes to that 6th tool players ignore. Character. How well do you handle adversity?
quote:Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
Another thing I would like to see in youth baseball is perhaps somewhat smaller rosters but every kid on the team is in the batting order. If you have twelve or 13 hitters on the team, why can't every kid have his name in the batting lineup every game? Who the hell cares if that is not pure baseball?
In fact, it would ruin the game. Competition is the great motivator for these kids. Should a kid who works his tail off to improve his game have to sacrifice in favor of those that don't? Do we apply this logic to pitchers as well? Pitch Jones equally regardless of his ERA?
These travel teams are formed to win. If they don't, the travel team would fail to attract top talent. "Travel" teams that are formed to simply benefit the sons of the coaches, who otherwise wouldn't play or would receive diminished playing time, are by definition not travel teams and won't attract top talent.
A talented player who sits in favor of mediocre players would simply migrate to a team where his talents are rewarded, IMHO. At some point, these kids need to learn the value of hard work. They can't do that if there is no reward.
quote:Originally posted by Bum:
In fact, it would ruin the game. Competition is the great motivator for these kids. Should a kid who works his tail off to improve his game have to sacrifice in favor of those that don't? Do we apply this logic to pitchers as well? Pitch Jones equally regardless of his ERA?
Respectfully disagree. Depending on the age group and especially early on, I think the more players you get involved the better. There is a school of thought that thinks that the better players are somehow diminished by a letting others get involved (my favorite comment was that it is "baseball socialism.") To me, nothing could be further from the truth. reason one is very practical; with a very few exception, NO ONE knows who will turn out to be a stud; it is play and hard work that allow PLAYERS to decide. And you can't do that on the pine.
Reason two is that the truly gifted athlete (with talent and work ethic) will be better and, when it counts (when everyone is man-sized and in their late teens and early twenties) will move on. In my opinion, sitting the bench early in the baseball process (before high school, anyway) doesn't "build" much of anything. Importantly to me, it DOES shrink the pool of athletes willing to stick with a very difficult game into their late teens; which I think is a bigger issue.
I think that is telling that this argument often devolves into a "talented/hardworking player" versus "mediocre/lazy player" comparison (because everyone agrees that a talented/hardworking player shouldn't give anything to the other). I said this a little earlier in the thread; I see this as a false comparison. My experience has been that any player that cares enough to move to a team that will get him or her more PT is anything but lazy. As to the truly entitled or lazy, I just don't see them moving on to begin with.
OBC