Little League age determination

I think that would be a move in the wrong direction.  They need to move it back to August and get some of those monster 13 yr olds out of there

....unless they're going to move it to Jan 1 and make it U12 like soccer....instead of 12U as baseball is now in most cases.  You could turn 12 anytime after Jan 1 and still play.  Determining age is much easier that way....especially for parents of younger kids.  Many of them have never understood the May 1st cutoff.

 

Now if they're keeping it 12U...and moving the date up to Jan 1....that's a huge mistake.  You could have kids who are 13 years and 9 months playing in the LLWS.   Not sure why you would do that...especially at those base/mound/fence distances.

Majors:

Any candidate who will attain the age of 9 years on or before December 31 and who will not attain the age of 13 on or before December 31 of the year in question shall be eligible to compete in Little League Baseball.

 

If I'm reading it correctly, it sounds like 12U for the calendar year. I think that's different than the current LL Softball age chart.  No more 13 year-old at Williamsport?  That would be an improvement.

 

If that's the case, they will really need to invest in 50/70 fields for those young 13U Juniors.

IF they do change it, it needs to be where a child can still play with his normal age grade, i.e. the kids he goes to school with. That is part of the fun, etc of rec ball, playing with your age group (Not talking about those youngsters who were held back a grade, etc)

Originally Posted by MidAtlanticDad:
If that's the case, they will really need to invest in 50/70 fields for those young 13U Juniors.

Why? Why not just put them on the 60/90 like they’ve been doing ever since there’s been LLJrs? I know there’s a lot of folks who feel its “better” for everyone that they play on some mid-sized field, but why? My son was 13 when he started HS, and he wasn’t the only one on the team in that situation. He played LL Jrs and Srs, HS Fr and JV, and lots of tournament ball on the 60/90, with only a couple tournaments at 54/80. It was funny that the most trouble came on the 54/80 fields.

Some 13 year olds struggle on the 60/90 - but so do some 14 year olds. They are going to have to adapt some day.  I don't see the need to go to 54/80 either.

 

Down here you have 13U travel playing either 54/80 or 60/90, and rec through 14U playing 54/80 - without BBCOR bats.

 

At fall JV tryouts half the kids had never played on a full sized field with BBCOR. Talk about a rude awakening.

 

 

When LL and all the other youth organizations moved the date from August 1 to May 1 it was a compromise to USA Baseball who suggested the date be moved to January 1. January 1 is the international cut off date for baseball. The intent all along has been to ultimately get to January 1.

 

As for the size of the fields LL is already trialing 50/70 fields. I believe its becoming an option for all LLs. (I'm out of the LL loop). I would expect the LL tournament will eventually move to 50/70 play.

 

Those bats do make a difference!  Last summer my kid's 14U team was on a local college field one weekend, and the  boys were one-hopping the walls with their 1.15BPF bats.  Next weekend they played on the same field with BBCOR bats and struggled to get the ball out of the infield.

 

RJM -- LL now has an official 50/70 Division with its own World Series and everything. Unfortunately LL has not had a clear vision of how to implement and market the division -- all they seem to understand is that they need it to combat the exodus to travel ball -- and local leagues are confused at best.

The biggest problem with the 50/70 division that has been created is that they are still using the 200 ft fields...it's a joke.  You have 13 yr olds using big barrel bats cranking hr after hr....what good is that.  Those kids are much better served moving up to the big field and working a little harder.  I moved my middle son up to the big field at 12, he opted to skip his 12 yr old season on the small field.  Now that he is a freshman in HS this yr, it turned out that it was the best move.  He has two extra seasons on the big field , 3 compared to some younger freshman, and it showed over the summer playing with the HS incoming team.  IMO 50/70 is useless unless it is for the 12U group.

My son played 50/70 as an 11u and some as a 12u while he transitioned to the 60/90 field.  He's 14 and a freshman now and has spent most of the last 2 years on the big field.  

 

He could have played 13u 50/70 this year.  Wasn't interested in it.

Most LLers aren't going much further in the game. So I don't see the need to criticize a field that works for a strong majority of the kids. My son had an opportunity to repeat his 12 year old LL season due to the date change. He chose to move on to 13u Majors travel. I believe 7th graders should move up to be grade appropriate in the summer rather than age appropriate. They're only two years from high school.

Son played 50/70 in 13u and 60/90 as a 14u before HS. I thought 50/70 was good for him since it added all the nuances of the game you don't get in LL like leading off and pick offs. It also is a much faster game on 50/70 forcing players to be more precise in their fielding as well as facing pitchers at a shorter distance. Son did not suffer at all when he got to HS with only one year of 60/90 under his belt.

Regardless what age and what field size is available I believe that a player should have at least one year of 60/90 under his belt before getting to high school. 

That's just a completely ridiculous statement.  Whether or not you play LL as a 11 or 12 year old has absolutely NO effect on whether or not a kid will go "much further".  There are a lot of kids who play both LL and Travel, take a look at the LLWS rosters...you'll see kids from some of the top travel teams in the country. A lot of kids play both travel and LL, if for no other reason than to spend at least some of the summer with their friends and classmates.  There are also a lot of areas where LL is the only option.  Those kids will end up playing for their local HS and likely have some of them go on to college.  Over the years, our HS has had several kids play college baseball who never played travel...LL and Legion is the only option unless you want to go 1 1/2 to 2 hrs away.  Heck, one pitcher who has never played anything but LL, HS and Legion (all in the same small town) just committed to a D1.  LL has it's good points...and weak points, the field size being the major issue.  A lot of people are saying "play on bigger fields".  That's fine, but LL is a community (rec) based program.  Most of the LL's are based in parks....that may not have bigger fields, and if other towns are like the one I live in, building new baseball fields isn't a priority financially right now.  Even moving fences back from 200 to 225 is a pretty big expenditure...assuming the field has room to do that.  I applaud LL for at least taking the first step and moving the age cutoff.  It seems that they are at least heading in the right direction.

      

It's not a knock on LL, it's a reality. Most kids playing baseball from the ages of 6-13 will not make their high school teams - at least in more populated areas. It's the funnel effect - nothing more.

Count how many kids are playing some sort of rec ball, then add in the kids playing travel.  Compare that to the number of slots available on the local HS team.

For example there were 70 14U rec players in the program closest to my son's school. Off the top of my head there are kids at the school from 5 different travel programs - so another 60 kids or so.

Add them up and there are 130 or so freshmen baseball players for 15 slots.  Out of those, 60 actually tried out for the fall JV team. 75% of them did not make the team.

So saying most LL'ers (heck any kids playing at that age) aren't going much further is a pretty accurate statement. 

As to field size, I think a progression up to 60/90 is the best.  The 60/90 field is gigantic after coming off of 46/60.  50/70 at 12 and 54/80 at 13 is a nice transition.       

IN my area, my sons HS team is not exactly a power house, although there is one in our county.  My sons HS has had a few players go on to play in the pros, a cpl in the last few years.  The LL I was involved in, and ran, has fed the HS program decently.  But that LL has not produced a player that has gone beyond HS since its inception around 15 years ago, until this year, when my kid committed.  Again, no knock like like Rob T said, just a fact in this leagues case.  And, most of the local young travel ball players play LL at the same time

I agree.  For some kids that may be too slow a progression. They can play up. For some it may be too quick.  In some cases they may play down. 

 

One problem usually ignored by those who feel that kids should move to the 60/90 field at 13U is amount of baseball being played in the travel ball era, and the stress that can put on kids' arms.  Pitching rules for USSSA and other travel orgs are ridiculous (but that's another thread) and you add that to the big field and 4-5 games per weekend and you get the potential for a lot of dead arms, especially for pitchers and catchers. Graduated field sizes helps mitigate that.

Well then, I think the parents/player needs to ask themselves a serious question....do you want to play on the big field and get prepared for that level, or do you want to continue to play travel ball on a smaller field, witch in the long run, really amounts to nothing? 

 

I think that is one of the things that on the surface would seem to be true, but really isn't when you analyze it .

Think about it - do the pitchers throw with any less effort at 54 than at 60?  From either distance they are throwing as hard as they can.  The only thing that changes is the release point. FIelders may have a harder adjustment because they have to put a little more on routine plays - but on close plays, they are going to be throwing as hard as they can regardless of the field size. A max effort throw is a max effort throw.

You could argue that there would be more need for a max effort throw from a greater distance for fielders - but I don't know that there would be any way to quantify the difference from one field to the other.

Fair points.  But a catcher returning the ball a pitcher standing 60' 6" away upwards of 200 times (assuming 7 innings at average 20 pitchers per inning and 10 warm-ups) is certainly expending a lot more energy and putting more stress on his arm than a catching throwing to a target 15% further away, and you know he's trying  to muscle up on the long throw to second, even in warmups.

 

As for pitchers, fair point, but I think the bigger field results in fewer strikes, until the kids adjust,  and therefore more pitches thrown per inning. They also tend to trust their FB less and want to throw breaking balls, which may tend to cause more stress.

It’s important that cause and effect not get confused.  YES:  The ‘funnel effect’ does exist.  Far fewer kids will be playing baseball at 15 years old then there were at 10 years old.  But I believe it has very little correlation to where and what organization the kid played in and everything to do with the natural skills and teach-ability of the player.

 

The 60/90 field is very large.  I’ve watched very, very bad and boring baseball played by kids not yet strong enough to be playing on a full sized field.  At the 13U, 14U and into average player ability of 16U, the 9-3 force out at first is a common play.  Out-fielders are generally positioned much closer to the infield dirt than the outfield wall.  Which means they are playing a modified version of the fullsized baseball game!  Just as smaller field dimensions are modifications.  Just as fewer innings and a Tee for the youngest players are modifications.

 

For those that have had players or have experience with both Little League rules and other rulesets, how long did it take a Little League player to get used to taking a lead-off?  One weekend tournament?  Maybe a single-game? 

 

Learning to field a grounder cleanly.  Getting your body in the right position to make a throw.  Turning hand-eye coordination into a baseball swing.  These are the skills that’ll make a High School baseball player and they can be taught and honed on any field.

 

It is important to acknowledge that it’s likely in many areas that travel programs, academies, etc are producing more high school baseball players than rec leagues.  But I think that says more about the kids/families self-selecting into these programs than the ability of the programs to take any kid off the street and turn ‘em into a player.

Good points CAB.  The biggest thing that I observed for kids experiencing the big field for the first time was the fact that with everything being a little bit longer, it really exposed the little flaws in a players technique/form on the fielding side of things, things that they were able to get away with on a smaller dimension field, they cannot on a big field.

 

Quality coaching in the LL setting was the single biggest factor, IMO, of the lack of talent that moved on.  I know that is not true in all LL, but it is prominent in most.

No I did not make a ridiculous statement. You proved my statement with your ignorant, arrogant response. You went on to talk about the LLWS, travel ball and high school ball. About 70% of LLers don't go past LL or fail their first year on the large field. For these kids the small LL fields work just fine until they age out. If your kid is too wonderful for LL move on. LL was not designed to cater to future travel and high school players. It was designed to provide an introduction to baseball, exercise, socialization, learn teamwork, develop character and values.

Some people have mentioned 13u pitching distances as an issue for young arms. I've always seen arm issues from a different light. If a kid starts playing travel in 9u and remains a pitcher through 17u he's going to put a lot of mileage on his arm. 

 

There wasn't travel when I was a kid. I made LL at age nine. There was no way I was going to get twelve year olds out. I pitched a couple of games at eleven and was a starting pitcher at twelve from the regular season through divisions. New England had Divisions between States and Regions. 

 

At thirteen I played Babe Ruth and junior high. Once again a thirteen year old isn't going to pitch because he can't get fifteen year olds out. I pitched at fourteen and fifteen and 8th and 9th grade for junior high. 

 

In high school and Legion I was at the bottom of the pitching depth chart soph year of high school. I didn't pitch until the following two years.

 

I didn't pitch much until I was twelve and 5'7". I had my thirteen and sixteen year old ages off from pitching other than practice. Many kids now throw more innings by 8th grade from playing travel than I threw by the time I graduated from high school. I really only pitched one year (twelve) until I was fourteen and 5'10". I pitched vary little during the years when my growth plates were experiencing the most growth.

Originally Posted by JCG:

Fair points.  But a catcher returning the ball a pitcher standing 60' 6" away upwards of 200 times (assuming 7 innings at average 20 pitchers per inning and 10 warm-ups) is certainly expending a lot more energy and putting more stress on his arm than a catching throwing to a target 15% further away, and you know he's trying  to muscle up on the long throw to second, even in warmups.

 

While that MAY be true, I suspect its very unlikely. A catcher making a throw back to the pitcher certainly doesn’t throw the ball as hard as someone throwing BP, and they very often throw 2-300 pitches with no ill effects. Its nowhere near a max effort throw.

 

As for pitchers, fair point, but I think the bigger field results in fewer strikes, until the kids adjust,  and therefore more pitches thrown per inning. They also tend to trust their FB less and want to throw breaking balls, which may tend to cause more stress.

 

You got the most important point right. “until the kids adjust”. The more they do it, the sooner they’ll make that adjustment. And it won’t matter if they’re 13 or 16, because there will still be an adjustment that needs to take place.

 

I’m glad to see you used the word “may” when you talked about breaking pitches causing more stress. However, just as a breaking pitch MAY cause more stress, a FB MAY as well. The stress comes from the mechanics used.

And that's the problem with most rec. youth leagues (LL included) -- the coaching can outright suck.  Add in some of the stupid LL rules and most kids/parents leave for "greener" pastures. 

Our boys went to the 70' fields 4 or 5 years ago, and I believe it makes the transition to the big fields much easier.  Our Cal Ripken League has fields that are 250' to center though.  

The LL we came from would have to find all new facilities to move the fences back. One field is up against private property that won't sell. A second is up against a street. A third is up against a pond. Yet the program keeps funneling players towards the high school program.

Many leagues have that issue, and it makes moving to 50/70 difficult. But in that case it's also worth looking at playing 50/70 on the league's Juniors-Seniors field.  We made both our Majors field and Juniors field dual-use, and the expense and work was similar.

 

It's expensive, but another option to try if a Majors field can't be expanded past 200' or so is to raise the fences.  It's actually pretty fun for the kids to see a bomb turn into a Fenway-style single when it hits near the top of a 15' fence.

We're so far removed from LL the solutions don't matter to me. In fact, I moved when my youngest headed for college. But the Jr/Sr fields aren't a solution given they do not exist. LL ends with Majors. The good players move on to travel or Legion. The hangers on move on to Connie Mark. All three situations involved using school district or town facilities.