Funny how i always think of this site when I read something that would incite great debate, humor and in some cases pure outrage . Kind of like a year-round Thanksgiving Dinner at my house.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
allow pegs?
Local talk radio guys discussed this one in depth this week. Call- ins were the usual yahoos mumbling about "coaches yelling at kids" and "daddyball this and that." It was a great subject but the flow of uniformed opinion and cliches diffused the conversation until it was unlistenable.
The issue the way I saw it was that MLB thought that changing the rules of the game would somehow adjust the marketability of the game to kids and entice them to stay with a sport that has seen a 40 percent drop in participation over the past decade. The simple-mindedness and wrongheadedness of this proposal astounds me.
I think the loss of participation is easy to trace. Kids have always self-deselected in the sport as they got older and lost the passion or hit their ceiling for level of competition (or had the passion displaced or replaced by something else like school, music, girls, partying, whatever). That deselection process has gradually moved down in age over the years. And for one specific reason: kids are attracted to sports because of the "play" aspect. When the play aspect diminishes or goes away entirely, so does the reason they came to the game in the first place, and they deselect.
The reason why the deselection process has moved downward in age among kids who would otherwise play the game is because the play aspect of the game, TO THEM, has diffused or gone away at younger and younger levels. A boy wants to feel he belongs with his potential peer groups. Belonging in sports means somehow making a contribution to the team effort and satisfactorily "keeping up" from a competitive standpoint. As soon as that possibility is diminished, deselection occurs.
A generation ago, you had the singular kid in every neighborhood whose dad built a cage in the backyard or had a tee and net in the garage. But you had no wide-scale adoption of off-season training in skills or strength and conditioning. So most kids had no threshold qualms about whether or not they could keep up. This situation now is completely different. Kids are engaged in skills practice for longer portions of the year. Kids in academy style club programs are getting exposure to strength and conditioning in a structure way earlier and earlier. The bloody Little League World Series is broadcast on ESPN for crying out loud! The game has become a defacto copy of the Japanese system for selecting which level of university (if at all) and person will attend, where that selection occurs very early in life and without variation.
Furthermore, with the intrusion of ESPN into these games at younger and younger age levels begs the question of what "regular" kid (you know, the kind of kid who pulls the old bat and glove out of the closet when March rolls around and head to the local park for tryouts) when his search image for kids his age playing the game is LLWS teams full of early-maturing kids playing on ESPN? That kid will have to have a very strong sense of the shear fun of heading down to the park to play with the neighborhood kids to ignore that search image. That's a rare kid and good for him. Because he's had to ignore ESPN recruiting reports of coaches offering 8th graders, and on and on and he's had to ignore what is being shown as the "new normal" for this crap.
If you want to increase participation of kids, you don't change the rules of the game at the professional level. You get the big money out of the game. You get ESPN out of the kids sports business and give the game back to the neighborhoods. You give kids a chance to play with their friends in a meaningful environment away from the frothing "select baseball" industry. Because half of the demo for that industry (if not more, I have no way to source data) is kids who will be avg to below avg HS players anyways. And THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT except that now playing recreational sports has been stigmatized as being for weaklings!
Here is another interesting take on the subject.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma...stupid/#44582a3b3076
I question the 40% drop in youth participation. Have yet to hear how participation head counts are conducted now as opposed to years past. Are they simply taking long established mainstream organizations and comparing numbers from year to year? I would argue it may not be the participation rates that have declined rather the mainstream organizations of the past have lost participants to newer organizations. We have a retired major league player in our community in his early 40's. He never played any type of travel; only league, high school, and American Legion. Had he been coming up now I doubt he would have played park ball & Legion. There is not only well know travel organizations but numerous regional choices available. Add fundraising tournaments to the mix and there is always somewhere to play for whomever wants to thow a travel team together at any age. My question is whether youth participation rates have drastically declined or kids are playing where they're not counted.
To grow the sub-15U pie, the game needs to be more inclusive by reducing financial barriers, as those barriers help prevent some talented athletes from participating. We are firmly middle class, and the total cost to play in a very competitive environment is financially challenging, and I cannot imagine how athletes from the lower class can participate.
Change the rules to improve participation all you want, but without reductions in the cost to participate, those rules are hamstrung.
I certainly agree with the takes on the subject so far.
Curious to others thoughts on another reason, specific to the rec level. My son had the opportunity when he was younger to play rec in two different states.
The first rec experience (6-7 yrs old) had rules enforced that the kids had to play multiple positions, infield and outfield every game. That meant every practice the kids were moved around to learn and participate in the game.
His second experience, no such rules. The kids got put into one position based on their first couple of practices and that is pretty much where they played all season. The goal for 95% of the coaches was to win. And this is at 8 years old.
I believe that leagues like that creates the "class" system among the players and the weaker kids are put in the outfield and pretty much forgotten about.
I saw significant dropouts at the younger ages and always felt it was a shame. Not every kid is gonna be a "natural" their first year or so playing.
I also heard recently that there was a rec league more like the first I described in a neighboring county and many parents who can afford the extra fee for playing out of county are taking their younger kids there for a better experience and allow them to learn.
Bragging rights at 7-8 year rec is all about the coaches and parents.
Thoughts?
We're losing out to basketball and football. I think because of the money factor. Travel ball is almost becoming an upper middle class sport. This I think is due to the organizations and parents willing to pay out the wazoo just to have their sons wear their logos. I admit I'm one. I saw your article and I hate the ideas they mentioned. Keep baseball pure is my two cents.
way too many league board members/directors making up all kinds of rules for the underlings to follow instead of just having/enforcing plain ole simple playing/field time.all this is done in the name of making things "FAIR" for everyone.
I don't like the idea of mandating kids play multiple positions to include infield and outfield. My son participated a couple of years in a fall league with those type of requirements. The quality of play was horrible. Another issue is safety of kids; playing infield for skill challenged players can pose injury risk. Several years ago I was talking to a friend who lives in a different community. His son is the type of kid who participated but lacked skills and interest to improve. I asked my friend if his son was still playing baseball. His reply was that he got hurt the previous year; was now afraid of the ball and quit playing. He told me his son was playing first base, on a routine throw from a fielder a ball popped out of his give and hit him in the face. Dad said his son had a habit of catching the ball with palm up and struggled in general with the game. I responded coaches sometimes do kids a disservice by playing them in positions they want to play; his response was; "I know, I was the coach". There are issues with "Daddy ball" in youth baseball in both league and travel. I agree kids and parents get frustrated (rightfully so) when their kid never gets a chance. Been though it myself when my son was 8 years old. Had a coach who featured his son. Other infield positions were filled by asst coaches sons, buddies of son, and buddies sons. Positions were set on the fist day of practice and never changed. Now in High School none of the infielders now play while two outfielders are now Varsity starters. I understand the frustration but disagree with rules that require all kids get to play infield. First time a line drive nails a kid in the head that lacks skills to catch or get out of the way people will be asking why they were there in the first place.
first to respond to Godad44 - pegging would be awesome, that would slow down some of those rotten SOB's that run like the wind!!
2nd Ripken's comments are somewhere between delusional and stupid. I don't think he believes them himself, I hope he is having some kind of out of body thought process with good intentions and realizes it might the dumbest thing he has ever said!
if MLB wants to help set up local support in all the teams home markets, share the open spaces from a pool of money, dump a COUPLE OF MILLION PER TEAM into development centers, coaches, supporting local showcases / high competition tournaments so teams and kids don't feel the need to travel so far to "be seen" and so on...do it every year for 5 or 10 years and see what your pipeline looks like!
Lets face it folks 2 or 3 million per year doesn't buy you a good middle reliever but it can go long long way to making your pipeline better!
I am not even saying that they should do this or that they have any obligation to do it just that it would be much better plan then experimenting with the fundamentals of the game to see if it is good or not.
We would play all day every day. Baseball, softball, whiffle ball.
Believe it or not I still have great memories from Whiffle Ball games.
Some great things about Whiffle Ball. No adults, don't need a big park, doesn't cost much.
PGStaff posted:We would play all day every day. Baseball, softball, whiffle ball.
Believe it or not I still have great memories from Whiffle Ball games.
Some great things about Whiffle Ball. No adults, don't need a big park, doesn't cost much.
funny you say whiffle ball, my sons friends would always make him hit left handed when they play whiffle ball,
now he can hit from both sides of the plate, aka Switch hitter.....
PGStaff posted:We would play all day every day. Baseball, softball, whiffle ball.
Believe it or not I still have great memories from Whiffle Ball games.
Some great things about Whiffle Ball. No adults, don't need a big park, doesn't cost much.
When I was coaching 8-12u local league travel team I used to ask the boys for 1.5 hours of a good practice. if I got that they would be able to play whiffle ball until the parents made them leave. There were many times we turned on the field lights (we never discussed that with league treasurer!) so they could continue to play after dark. My son carried flat rubber bases and a plate in the back of my car, they used to set up in the outfield so the fence was in play...us dads would sit at the back of the truck drinking a few beers and occasionally acting as an umpire to settle a dispute.
those boys are almost all 2017 grads now and you know what they talk about when it comes to LL ages - Cooperstown, Whiffle ball and making Ripken states when they were 12!!
They don't discuss winning this or that tournament or who won the league or who had more home runs. it is just about the good times and priceless memories!
2ndMarDiv posted:We're losing out to basketball and football. I think because of the money factor. Travel ball is almost becoming an upper middle class sport. This I think is due to the organizations and parents willing to pay out the wazoo just to have their sons wear their logos. I admit I'm one. I saw your article and I hate the ideas they mentioned. Keep baseball pure is my two cents.
In our area it's Lacrosse. They play during the same season and use some of the same baseball skills, but with pads and hitting people.
I really hate, hate, hate the idea of changing the rules. What happens to those kids when they actually have to start playing the game without the added "excitement" of the new rules? It might be a fun novelty for a few games, but I think it makes a joke of the game. It reminds me of slow pitch softball speed up rules. I want kids to love the game of baseball.
Rec ball dominates our area and it shows in high school. We are only slightly competitive because about a quarter of our kids sought out opportunities outside of our local rec league. As a HS program, we honestly wish more of our kids played at a higher level growing up. I know that is not the popular opinion, but it's really hard to be competitive when you need to teach the basics of catching and throwing to high school freshmen. They have so much ground to make up by the time they reach high school, that the coaches run out of time. As a parent, I'm glad that I was able to provide other baseball opportunities to my son without breaking the bank, but I know that not all families in our area can do the same. It really is a catch-22.
I think the drop in baseball also has something to do with cultural changes. In my town, we have had two distinct ethnic groups move in; please don't take my comments as anything derogatory.
We have a large number of Albanians that typically do not play baseball at all. They are very active in soccer and basketball, and quite a few of the boys play football as well. I can count how many of these young men have played baseball on one hand.
Also in our area is a lot of Filipino families. They live and die with basketball. Not one kid that I know of plays anything else. When the basketball season is don through our program they go play on AAU and church teams the rest of the year. Some of these kids are on at least 5 teams throughout the year.
Our program has both travel and rec. We had planned on 4 travel teams (12U, 11U, 10U and 9U) this year and in reality will only field an 11U and 9U. Some players dis leave to go other places, but just as many just stopped playing. Which I find terribly sad. I'm pretty sure our rec program will be non-existent in 2 or 3 years. I grew up playing in this program so it's tough to watch. I've offered to teach skills (beyind what the coaches do) for both travel and rec in the hopes that some of these boys will want to continue, so we shall see. I've also been a proponent of bringing in boys that play varsity ball so the younger kids can see them and hopefully relate to them more than the ancient coaches (joke). That's worked to some degree but there's not enough followthrough.
I think economics drives a lot of things like interest in particular sports. The lure of a full scholarship in basketball or football -- and of course most kids will never reach that -- creates incentives. Andrew McCutchen wrote an article last year in which he talked about the difference between major college football (free ride, on TV) and minor league baseball. One thing he didn't talk about is that baseball is a fine-motor-skill sport (like golf and tennis), so it requires more practice than football, too, which also changes the economics.
Here's an idea, which wouldn't directly affect the younger kids' participation, but would I think change the economic incentives for athletes, and ultimately impact the younger kids, too. Set up a minor league wage scale along these lines:
AAA: $100K per player per season (total cost: $2.5 million)
AA: $80K per player per season (total cost: $2.0 million)
A (full season): $60K per player per season (assuming two teams, total cost: $3 million)
Short-season and rookie ball: $40K per player per season (assuming two teams, total cost: $2 million)
For each team, this probably would represent an increase of, say, $7 million, over what they are currently paying their minor leaguers. But with MLB revenues approaching $10 billion, I think it would be money well spent. It would have at least the following impacts:
(1) Lots more kids would "make it" in baseball, broadly defined -- all players in A, AA, and AAA would be making more than the average annual household income in this country. As a result, pursuing baseball would be more appealing than it is now.
(2) It would get a ton of press, highlighting the opportunities in baseball. It would likely hurt college baseball in the short run -- I think a lot more high school kids would sign -- but over the long run it would increase interest in baseball. Think about it this way -- I proposed the above amounts because I believe them to be reasonable within the context of a $10 billion industry. But to take this thought experiment a little farther, what would be the impact on baseball interest and participation if the numbers I proposed were 10X higher -- parents would be signing their kids up for baseball like crazy, right?
2019 dad has a great idea. But unfortunately I highly doubt they would even consider that. I doubt MLB would part with any of that money. Once they get their hands on it, it is hard to pry it out, even if it was more beneficial to them in the long run....
Would love to see MLB set up scholarship fund for college Baseball players to supplement athletic money. Not sure if it could be done but would give kids incentive to stay in baseball if full ride is a more realistic possibility.
I don't think paying minor leaguers more or offering more scholarships have anything to do with youth participation in baseball. That's the adult game. It's the kids game that needs help.
To actually play a game a baseball, a refined set of motor skills have to be learned and developed. It's different from other sports. While you are waiting (years) for the skills to develop enough to actually play a game, many kids stand around, or feel the "failure" of striking out, missing pop ups, ground balls, etc.
If we are going to spend other people's billions, it should be on urban and suburban baseball academies (fields/infrastructure/ex baseball player advocates paid by MLB) to get youth participation. Some rule changes on playing time, speed up rules, etc could help.
Some of the more exciting youth baseball I have seen is machine pitch (which cost money, of course). Machine pitch ended at 8 yo locally. What if it went to 10 or 11yo? games would be fast, lots of hitting and fielding. Lots of scoring. Arms would be introduced to pitching at 11 or 12 instead of 8 or 9.
We could also develop a mask (like those restricted breathing training masks) that dad's are required to wear at games. It would mute any criticisms uttered and the output would be "go son, go! great effort!"