Playing time for young ballplayers

ClevelandDad,

Welcome to the “Time has altered my thinking” club.

What you’re describing is exactly what LLI has legislated for a very long time now, and the reason they legislate it.

My feelings are that any player on the roster who comes to practice and shows up for games should get plate appearances and time in the field every game, and that should happen at least until the player has matured both physically and mentally.<input id="mac_address" type="hidden" value="" />

What my son's team did at 7th/8th grade was that all the player got to play during pool play games.  The top 9 or 10 played in the bracket games. Who the top players were changed based on how well the kids played in pool play.  

It allows the team a chance to win, but also let all the kids get some time in.  

That's how my son's 13U team and 14U team usually played, though it varied a bit For a super NIT we might play 10 all weekend, but for a normal tournament we might bat everybody even in championship games.  Especially at 12U and below I think parents have a right to be upset when a team takes their money, makes them travel, and doesn't play the kid.  It's just silly.  If you look at the roster of most "elite" teams at that age group, many of the studs are out of the game by high school, and many of the scrubs are still playing.  So it's pointless too.

In St Louis, it seems we always used the term "select" instead of travel.  Same thing as travel, play more games, higher level, have tryouts, and cut players, which we never did.  To me, select meant the coaches selected which players we wanted on the team.  With that mind set, why would I want a kid if I wasnt confident enough to play him.

Around here, it seemed all league play and tournaments were open substitution, and continuous batting order.  Everyone did it that way, even the top teams that had players that are now at D-1 schools and were drafted.  For the most part, all my players got around the same playing time, and within about 20 at bats a year of each other, and the other teams seemed to be about the same.  This was never an issue with one parent or player.  We all paid the money and they all played about the same amount.  Somebody will ask "What incentive did the players have to improve if they always got the same amount of playing time, etc?"   Well, *** was my weakest hitter, so he batted 11th, last in the lineup.  He knew he was weakest and so did mom and dad.  And he knew if he wanted to move up, he had to improve his  hitting.  Same way with defensive substitution.  We kept it pretty equal, but if the game was tight during late innings, my top 9 were on the field and my bottom 2 were on the bench.  They knew why they were on the bench in that situation.  And knew if they wanted to be on the field in the last inning of a close game, they had to improve.  This always worked out for us.  Seemed to work out for everyone else, too.

The younger they are, the more important it is that everyone plays.  

This reminds me of when my oldest boy played in something like a local 10 year old league.  His coach was this great big man that had a son on the team.  His son was also a great big kid for his age.  In fact, he looked like he was more like a 16 year old.  

My son wasn't very good at baseball but he enjoyed playing.  He played as much as anyone and had fun.   On the other hand, the great big coach with the great big son usually sat out his son more than all the others.  They actually wanted to win, like all kids do and this coach had it figured out (Kind of)

He would play all the other kids and if they were winning he would make sure everyone played other than his son.  So some games his son was the only kid that didn't play. But if the team was behind his son would come in and pitch.  Well, he threw much harder than everyone else and he could throw strikes, so that was sort of the end of the other team scoring.  Then sometimes if the team was behind his son would come in to pinch hit for whoever might be batting with the bases loaded for instance.  The big boy would hit one that would roll for a mile and the whole team would go crazy.

As you might imagine, his son never really ended up being a baseball player.  He did end up playing football in college.  His dad was a HS football coach!  I always thought the way his dad handled that young group of kids was kind of cool.  It was almost like his kid was there just to help the other kids on the team have fun.  And his kid was pretty neat about all this too.  He would cheer on the other kids while he sat on the bench. To be honest, my wife and I both really liked the kid because of the way he acted.

Anyway, that is the only time I've seen a dad coach use his son like that.  Then again, I suppose if the kid had played all the time, they would have banned him from the league. He really was kind of a danger to the other little kids.

When I coached everyone played. In 7/8s the league required CBO and players switch positions at least every two innings. On my team the leadoff hitter in the next game was the on deck batter for the last out of the last game. Everyone got the same number of at bats and time at each position.

In 9/10 we had CBO. Players started earning more playing time at positions. But I still played everyone everywhere over the course of the season. Players were not allowed to sit on the bench in consecutive in innings. 

In 11/12 the competition started to be to play more. I didn't go by minimum playing time. Six kids played the game. Six kids split three innings. Those second six would get additional playing time in one sided games where the top six sat.

In 13u to 16u travel I believed everyone was on the team because they could play. Over the course of the season all position players played at least 60% of the time. If a kid was primarily a pitcher he still played a position in one of the pool games. 

In travel games I was a believer in getting kids multiple at bats in a game. It's tough to hit with just one at bat. So rather than splitting up playing time within a game I preferred letting a kid play all of one game and another kid playing all of another. This way they would get at least two at bats and most likely at least three. I also took advantage of the DH and the EH to play as many as possible.

Also, in travel ball I had every kid play some outfield. I told the kids as a freshman or sophomore they aren't going to take a position from an upper classman in high school. But if they can hit they might start in right or left field.

My philosophy never diminished the teams chances of winning. The rec teams were always among the top teams with some championships won. The travel team was one of the top ranked teams in the region.

Here is my take.  The first thing is that there should not be so many players that the kids can not play 2 games in a tournament.  Most tournaments at that level I have seen are 3 game guarantee's except in the event of a really big tournament.  With that saying if a team is carrying 11 players there is no reason 10 and 11 can't play in the pool games prior to the championship game, or one of them playing during championship day.  At the lower level it truly is about playing and getting reps so the players should be in a position in which they can all play multiple games in a tournament.

I generally would want a travel team below HS level to begin from the presupposition that all players are going to play equally, and then to have a roster with the size sufficient to make sure you never got caught short, but limited enough to assure that there was ample PT for all.

But THEN, I would explicitly reward effort with playing time, and take PT away from those less committed.  Note that I am talking about EFFORT more so than performance.  In particular, the kid who shows up for the third game of a tourney because he went to his friend's birthday party should not expect to step right onto the field ahead of someone else who was there from the first pitch.  There were always parents who felt that everyone couldn't play all the time, so it should be OK just to miss a game here and there.  But this sort of thinking allows parents to tell the coach what the lineup will be from game to game and is anathema to any team concept.  You have to control it or it'll destroy your program.

All that being said, I'll emphasize that this is how I would want a program to run.  The beauty of travel ball is that all players participate in a perpetual state of free agency.  If at any time you don't like what's going on, you can move to some other team that suits you better.  So, if someone isn't playing quite so much, but it's important to them to hang with their longtime buddies, they can still choose to go that route.  But if someone wants more PT, they can vote with their feet.

To each his own.  Leave things be and they'll sort themselves out by mutual selection.

In contrast, the LL model now allows individual players and their parents to decide from game to game and day to day how much they'll participate and how much they won't, and the coach cannot control it in any way.  And you can't vote with your feet, because LL is set up with strict territorial boundaries, and once someone signs up you have to work with them. 

I think it would work best if Williamsport would do nothing more than provide a statement of general policy to each local LL, then let the local board decide when a coach is handling things with good judgment and when he isn't.  All the rule making and control from afar is one of the reasons you see LL losing participants while travel ball grows exponentially.  There may be people who say they want all these Williamsport rules, but what their behavior shows they really want is more control to design their own program.

As for the younger kids, described by the OP, IMO they should all be playing and given a chance to develop, most of this is in the rec leagues of course.  Much to my dismay, there is a local LL that is closing up and switching to Cal Ripken, the leagues President irked me when he made the following comments,' he stated that the main reason they were switching was because of the "travel ball phenomenon", that those kids were seeking more competition so there numbers were down for LL.  He further stated that in doing the switch they would be able to get away from the minimum play time and the kids would have to earn play time through competition".  I don't have a problem with the travel ball, but this guy and his league just kicked the undeveloped kids and the kids who just want to go out and play and have fun to the curb, now there is nowhere for those kids to play unless it's Ripken.  Some kids need the extra time to develop, but it seems now that players, and parents, are all caught up in the "now"  When I coached LL, from the 9/10 all the through JR's, I had a schedule that allowed everyone a minimum of 4 innings in a 6 inning game, and that was carrying 13 players.  You never know what kid might blossom into a full blown stud by having them sit the bench.....I say LET THEM PLAY!  The better talent will still move on to higher levels where they can compete for play time.

Maybe the teams that are "pay for play" should not have the kids pay until after the season, then they can be charged a per innings played fee....not fare to pay the same price up front and then see very few innings....just sayin

Might have to agree to disagree, though my mind is somewhat split on this because I think that Williamsport  has its head inserted far up its own lower gastrointestinal tract right now, particularly with its handling of the 50/70 division and its recent decision to allow players to chose a local league based on either school attendance or residence.

That said, as a former local league officer, I feel that making all LL managers adhere to the all-powerful Little Green Book is one of the greatest ideas in youth sports.  There are so many hyper-competitive morons out there, and half of them serve on their local boards.  If you let them run rampant the stuff they will do is just crazy, from pitching kids 6 innings in back-to-back games, to drinking beer in the dugout, to benching kids for striking out.   There's just no limit. The beauty of the system is that as board member, when you walk through the park, for example,  and see that a manager has set up a bunch of lawn chairs along the baseline (inside the fence) for his friends to watch the game, and meanwhile his 7-8yo players have made their  own on-deck circle and are swinging bats en-mass while the manager spits tobacco juice and warms up the pitcher, you can  say, "sorry buddy, everything here looks good to me, but those dang LL rules say you have to cut it out!" 

Young baseball players need to play.  No, there may not be equal playing time at the 9-13u level, and that's okay as long as all kids are still getting to participate more than they sit.  I think rotation is good and that players should know a little about every position out there to enhance the baseball IQ.    

I totally agree with Lefthook.  At the younger ages the kids are usually coached by a dad and the dads of other players.  Their kids play all day along with the early-maturer types.  In LL Bum, Jr. barely played and when he did it was an after thought.  I asked the coach about it, wondering why, and his response to me was exactly this:  "I guess I see things other people don't see."  Read:  Bum, Jr. sucks.

I think my own son is a perfect example why you don't give up on these kids at such a young age.  Let them play.

Would someone like to define PT? I know how I define it and how I measure it in order to see how its really distributed, but I rarely see anyone else do it.

<input id="mac_address" type="hidden" value="" />

Playing time is earned at the ages 13+.  Playing time for the ages 12 and under does not have to be equally distributed but should be fair and equitable in the sense that you are dealing with young players, their enjoyment and development, and this is not about winning a World Series.  

The league in our small town mandates a minimum playing time and if this isn't met and the team wins then the game is a forfeit.  

League ball is a chance to learn the game.  

High school ball is a time to earn the right to play. 

I coached Little League, Pony, and Travel Ball.  Playing time and allowing kids to play multiple positions was never an issue in Rec Ball.  In fact, I gave everyone of my players an opportunity to pitch at least one inning during the season and rotated them in the infield the first half of the season.  I gave the kids a chance to shine in areas that many other coaches wouldn't and it kept team morale up.  We won the majority of games and some championships...the parents were happy, and more importantly, the kids had fun!

Travel Ball was a different animal.  Our 10-12U travel team(s) was a very good local group of kids.  We competed and won a handful of tournaments with a roster of 12 and it was relatively easy to rotate the kids, as ten batters hit every game.  Again, the parents were happy and the players (local friends) had a blast.  Our 13U & 14U teams were a mix of Southern California players from four different counties and ranked highly nationally.  Playing the local tournaments with 11-13 players was generally not a problem and it was easy to rotate players.  The regional & national tournaments were tough, as we had to expand the roster to 15 to accommodate the need for additional pitching.  Rotating fifteen is more difficult, especially since the best pitchers at that age are also very good hitters & position players.  There were a few tournaments that the coaches sons sat a little more than everyone else, including my son.  I enjoyed playing/coaching against the best teams, but I hated trying to rotate a Big Roster.

I sincerely loved coaching, but I enjoyed the high school years (including travel-ball) just being a dad and taking pictures.

bsbl247. You hit on the core. It is roster size. Smaller roster is so much easier whether in rec ball or travel. But kids must get on the field before high school if they are to develop. And that includes the kid who is not at the top of the list at that age. Have seen to many kids 'peak' at 11 and 12. So pick whatever team your child is going to play for with an eye on roster size that is manageable and a coach who doesn't take a win at all cost approach. Have seen that almost wreck too many kids. 

Travel ball rosters at an early age, before age 15, should not have more than 12 players.  

When my son was on a travel team at age 12 and 13 I never understood why we carried 13 kids and 2 of those kids shouldn't have been on the team to begin with.   Even though my son saw a majority of the playing time there were some kids that never sat. 

I wouldn't want to pay for travel expenses to see my son sit half the games.  

I figured that will come in high school or college. 

I believe in Rec/Travel/Select ball all players should have the opportunity to play.  What I have seen work well is a 3 prong philosophy:  (1) Practice which allows development of every player at whatever position they want, (2) Development or "league" games which allow for equal playing time and multiple positions, and (3) Tournament games where you play to win, but everyone gets some playing time (you may have a few kids play all innings and the rest rotate).  Of course if there is some reason a kid doesn't deserve playing time (i.e.; misses practices) then he sits. 

Once you hit high school varsity, then playing time is earned.  Winning takes precedence. 

I’m still waiting to hear how PT is defined. Y’all might think its such a simple thing that everyone should just know it, so if that’s true it should be very simple to define.

If that’s too difficult, how ‘bout this. Can anyone tell us how they measure PT so they can compare the PT the players get?

<input id="mac_address" type="hidden" value="" />

Bum, you hit it on the head with this.  I often wonder about young kids who were good players with a lot of potential but never got the chance to play and ended up walking away from the sport altogether.  How many of these kids would've developed into something great had they not had their dreams squashed at an early age.   I guess we'll never know.

In LL Majors, managers are required to give all players 1 PA and 2 innings in the field in all games. (many leagues expand that to 3 innings on defense)  Violations result in suspensions.  In Minors, it's CBO.  Some kids and parents do get very very upset when they get to Majors and sit for most of the game, but they do play.   And I've seen many kids who got the minimum on the 60' diamond go on to be full-time players once they get on the big field.  It's a new game.

I agree with you baseballmania, for the majority of tournaments....but when a team travels to a state or national tournament there's a good chance that they'll play 7-8 games (assuming they're a competitive, as we were).  With innings pitched restrictions, we would likely run out of pitching by game 5-6 with only 12 on the roster.

As I said in my previous post, it's much easier to rotate kids when your roster is smaller.  I enjoyed the 4 game tournaments when we had 10 kids...everyone played.

I didn't find it all that difficult.

In rec ball I make a list of the players.  Then, I start from the top with however many I need to sit for the 1st inning.  Second inning move to the next kids on the list and so on.  Next game, start where you left off.  Occasionally you need to adjust for kids that miss a game, but really - it's not rocket science. The kids never seem to have an issue with it.

Of course this assumes that winning isn't your first priority.

My favorite playing time story goes like this....

A rec league I used to coach in had a rule that a player had to have two innings in the field and an at bat every game.

Now there was this coach who liked to argue that if a game didn't go 7 innings, it wasn't "complete" so this rule didn't apply. We had a 1:45 time limit so games never went 7 innings. So he felt he had the choice to not play everyone.

Yes, he was a board member too. 

Rob T,

I was asking how you defined Playing Time, and how you measured it to make sure everyone got whatever PT was determined to be fair. What you did was tell us how you went about trying to spread the PT around.

I don’t know if the kids would have an issue with any method, but I seriously doubt many would tell the authority figure in charge of it that they weren’t happy about how it was being done.

Stats

PT=Innings played

And my son did tell his coach that he did not think it was fair that some kids played the whole game and other players only got to play a few innings. Told the coach he would sit more to let the other kids play.

Playing time= Amount of innings in the field. I could have gone as far as giving everyone the same number of pitches in the field, or balls in play, or any number of other measures.  However I'm a little busy trying to coach to get into that much detail.

Fair= Treating everyone the same, unless there were some sort of extenuating circumstances. I measured it by playing everyone the same amount of time, or at least as close as was possible. Last season I had a player miss about half of the games due to injury.  Obviously he didn't get as many innings as players who were at every game, but for the games he was there, he had the same number of innings played as all the other players.

Now, I don't know if you have dealt with this generation of kids, but believe me they have real clear opinions on what is fair and what isn't - and most aren't shy about telling you all about it.

On the travel team my son played with there were 11 out of the 13 kids that could pitch.  5 of the pitchers were starters.   

Maybe that team was lucky but I just don't see why it should be difficult to have 12 kids on a travel team where at least half could pitch well.  

13-14 on a roster is usually fine at the higher levels.  Many times, there are 1-2 kids either hurt or otherwise absent so you need that cushion.  There are usually 2-3 p.o. types too. 

BTW I don't see the problem with kids periodically sitting.  After all, the real progress they're making is practice, workouts and the offseason.  For the higher levels, it is really showcase baseball and the scouts know this and will plan accordingly by talking to the coach as to when the boy is playing.

I see that both Rob and greatgame have gone with the standard “Innings played in the field”, but Rob has gone right to where I’ve been for over 20 years now. (Great minds )

 

Innings played is just as bad a measure for Defensive PT as Innings Pitch is for limiting pitchers for safety purposes. The reason is, all innings aren’t the same. I could easily have gone to pitches as Rob said, but I stopped short of that and have used batters all these years.

 

What we found out, especially where there was mandatory PT, was that often the kids who only played the 2 defensive innings got just as much and sometimes even more time in the field as the starters they replaced. The reason was, the pitcher was likely to be changed at the same time the fielding substitutions were made, and that 2^nd or 3^rd line pitcher ended up throwing a lot more than the 1^st line starters. Not all the time, but enough that it surprised all of us who looked at it.

 

But the point is, Innings played in the field is really tough, and even tougher if there’s any change made during that inning. I also was lucky enough to have always kept an accurate track of what position was being played, as well as the number of batters. Because of that it was pretty simple to show people how well or poorly the kids were being moved around to get opportunities at other positions.

 

I know it doesn’t sound like a big deal, but it doesn’t take much to give parents confidence that their little one isn’t getting hosed over, and that helps keep the “peace” in the dugout and in the stands.

 

Here’s what the numbers  looked like for our HSV team last spring.

 

http://www.infosports.com/scorekeeper/images/tim2.pdf

<input id="mac_address" type="hidden" value="" />

<input id="mac_address" type="hidden" value="" />

 Respectfully disagree with this BBM.  12 kids at a tournament over several days means your catchers may be getting too many innings, and you may not have enough pitching either.  What happens when someone gets the flu, sprains an ankle, or has a family emergency (or all of these at the same time)?  We had 12 players two years in a row and by the end of the season (with several injuries, minor to major, and one boy each year moving mid season) really had challenges fielding a team.  Thankfully, our club had another team at the same age level and kids could flow back and forth.  By the championships we used every kid who had been double rostered for the season on our team (from a total of 3 or 4 teams).  Twelve kids is pretty tight to start a season with, unless you're very lucky or perfectly balanced.

With a travel team you should be able to choose at least half of the team that can pitch well and at least 2 good catchers. 

Also why not carry 12 on the the team but 14 on the roster where 2 are alternates?  

Rob:

I will start by saying that I disagree with most of what I have read here. I do believe everyone ought to get a chance to play (and I am not differentiating between travel and Little League), but I also believe the best players ought to get most of the playing time. If a player improves, his playing time should increase. Practice enough for a player to get the chance to demonstrate his improvement. The way you describe it, outside a league where players are drafted, I doubt you would get very many top-level guys to play for you.

I understand that smaller players can grow and become among the very best when all is said and done, but usually the talent those players had was evident from the start. I also understand that some kids are good only because they are bigger and when that size advantage disappears, so does their edge on the field. I also understand that the move to the bigger field can change things dramatically.

All that said, I view baseball the same way I view math or English or any other academic subject. Gifted individuals ought to be cultivated. And, just like in math or English or science, you are not going to slow down the gifted students by putting them with the slower students. Thus, the advent of honors courses and gifted programs (even in elementary schools). If it were otherwise, the parents of the gifted kids would go nuts. So it ought to be in baseball. The worst thing in my view are Little Leagues with rosters of 15 that force a coach to bat the order. It is just not worth even being on the team in that instance for players of any kind of talent.

Yes, it ought to be fun and overuse is a strong consideration, but the most playing time ought to go to the best players. (And, of course, the rules that prevent this are what is killing Little League). Also, please note, I am not advocating burying a player on the bench, but I think "equal" playing time is even worse -- from the beginning.

First off, my comments concerned 8U rec ball.  If you want to discuss travel or HS ball, those are completely different creatures, with different purposes.

At 8U my responsibility is to develop ALL of the players.  Regardless of however talented a player may be, it would be a disservice to the rest of the team to put his development over the development of any of the other players.

If a player's parents (and let's not kid ourselves - it's ALWAYS the parents), can't accept the fact that their precious snowflake may have to sit an inning every game or so, perhaps they should move on to a sport such as golf or tennis where they won't have to deal with all of those inferior teammates. Those same parents that have playing time issues in rec ball are the ones who have it in travel ball as well.

As for gifted students, I've got two, and I'll tell you how it works for them... No matter who they sit in a class with, they have their own goals and standards to meet.  They are not confined in knowledge by those who sit around them.  The classroom is not the only place they learn - just like a game is not the only place for the gifted baseball player to learn.  If development is the true goal, and not just bragging rights for the parent's - then their are plenty of opportunities to develop skills outside of team practices or the classroom.

Thanks for the clarification, Rob. I did not realize you were talking 8U baseball. Nonetheless, I still disagree almost completely with your approach. Yes, it is important for all the players to have fun. To have fun, they all must play a meaningful amount. But you also should try to win every time you put a team on the field to compete. It is also fun to put players in situations where they can succeed -- both strong and weak players. When it matters, my best players play. I also continue to believe the same approach applies in the classroom. For sure every kid should take it upon himself or herself to improve, but not at the expense of the other kids. But, then, I never believed in trophies just for showing up.

The worst of this are the leagues where there are rules that each kid must get time at every position. Inevitably, a player (at, say 8u) who cannot catch will end up playing first base. Safety enters into the equation. The coach will then tell his stronger players not to throw the ball too hard to first base. There is just no way that is a good thing for anyone, including the parents who dictated those kinds of rules in the first place. Never put a player in a situation where he is not allowed to put forth his best effort. You didn't say that, but it can be the byproduct of the approach you describe.

jemaz,

Your assumption seems to be that “can” is the same thing as “will”.

Aside from that, I’d like to discuss how the notion that its somehow easier to catch a ball thrown easy than one thrown “normally”. I’m not talking about “abnormally” hard throws from abnormally short distances, but rather normal distance throws at normal velocities. Just like a curve ball is more difficult to hit than a FB, an arcing throw is more difficult to catch than one with much less arc on it. The reason is, its easier to determine where the ball will be in order to catch it.

It’s the same thing with ground balls. It’s a lot more difficult to field a grounder that’s moving relatively slowly because its much more subject to being affected by outside forces. And, its much easier to field a ball off to one side or the other than one directly at a fielder because its easier to get a good read on velocity. Think of it as what the hardest ball for an OF’r to catch. A liner directly at them, or one off to one side or the other?

<input id="mac_address" type="hidden" value="" />

The approach I described involved a simple rotation of who sits.  It ensured that nobody sat more than an inning in a game.  It did nothing more than that. I didn't realize that I was somehow stunting the growth of those future MLB'ers on my team.

Again, we're talking rec ball here. The best players play the prime positions, the best hitters hit in the top of the order - but everybody plays. If anything, I am teaching them that in baseball at some point their manager is going to tell them to sit - and they don't have to like it, but they have to do it. 

I can't speak for leagues that mandate positions, as I have never been in one.  Our rec t-ball division requires players alternate innings between IF and OF, but since nobody sits in that age level it never seems to be an issue.

On the 8U team in question, I had 2 first basemen. (Well, 1 was a girl actually) They were the players I trusted to not catch a ball with their teeth.