I think we need to discuss what is good for baseball before we can understand what is hurting baseball. It's good for baseball when a father signs his son up for LL. It's good for baseball when your neighbor comes to your son's game and his son wants your son to sign his ball or teach him how to play the game. It's great for baseball when the whole team and the families meets for pizza after the big game and they talk baseball. Baseball becomes a part of the community.
Those things didn't happen with my son. When my son went to a showcases it didn't help baseball --- it helped my son and HIS baseball. When my son joined a travel team and played most of their games "away" that did nothing to promote baseball but satisfied HIS baseball needs. High school was the exception. TV and newspapers were at almost every game. The stands were packed. This was "their" team --- "their" players. But then it's over too little --- and even some baseball players leave their HS to play elsewhere. When my son left our town and went 90 miles away to play for a select team it didn't help baseball --- it helped my son. The addition of my son may have made one select team better but by the same token his leaving his home town had to make one team worse. Unlike rec ball the only people that came to select games were select parents. If my son had had stayed home and played rec ball many more people would have come to the games, grandparents, friends, neighbors. Ever go to a "T" ball game and look at the crowds? More people show up at "T" ball games than select games. "T" ball gets more people in the community involved in baseball than anything else. As travel teams become more prevalent, the core of baseball players and parents leave town and community baseball withers on the vine. Each year the travel teams get younger and younger and more numerous. Rec ball gets weaker and weaker. The sad thing is today's travel teams are nothing more than yesterday's rec teams with new uniforms, team fees, paid coaches, and prouder parents that stay in hotels. Are coaches better? They are now but they are the same coaches rec ball had ---- before they left to play travel ball. If showcases filled professional rosters and college rosters that would have otherwise been unfilled then they would be the greatest thing that happened to baseball but those rosters will always be filled with the best talent regardless of showcases or camps. So in my opinion select teams, showcases, and even camps MAY help our son's baseball but I think they hurt the REAL game of baseball.
BUT I know if I have another son that's a good baseball player I would once again sacrafice a small part of baseball so that he might grow. Sorry Mr. Doubleday.
Fungo
I think that your son playing for a team out of town opened up a roster spot for another kid to play local rec ball.
Fungo,
My older son elected to stay with his local team despite having offers to play at a higher level. No matter what he would have decided it wouldn't have changed much of anything. Well, I guess it might have opened up a spot on the local team and he might have taken a spot from someone on the higher level team. I have a hard time figuring out how he could have had much of an impact on the game of baseball. When he quit playing basketball it didn't seem to hurt the game of basketball in our community.
My younger son did play on a travel team. I really don't think what he did had any impact either way on the game of baseball. I did notice that it helped him, though.
I agree that all those things you mentioned are very good for baseball. I also think those things are still happening from coast to coast.
I think I do understand where you might be coming from. Thinking of what's in the best interest of the game. I've gone on record as claiming baseball fans are more important than baseball players. Baseball fans are the ones who take the game to the next generation. That, to me, is the main reason why rec leagues, or baseball for everyone, needs to exist. There needs to be free or low cost options for those who want to play baseball, so they have every opportunity to fall in love with baseball.
No matter what our children do... They are not capable of ruining baseball. It's much bigger than they are.
I certainly believe that professional and college rosters would be full with or without showcases, travel teams, tournaments, camps, rec ball, or anything else... It's just my opinion that those rosters would involve some different players. That would be just fine, other than certain players with the ability to play at Arizona State, Clemson, North Carolina, Southern Cal, Stanford, you name the college... would never be seen by that college. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing, I only know that many young people (thousands) have benefited from it. Without it, it’s very likely that Carl Crawford would be a football player right now.
If we look at other popular sports, specifically football and basketball… the top recruits(for the most part) are going to showcases and camps We have great baseball prospects missing baseball events in the summer because they are also great football prospects and they are attending football camps and showcases. We have basketball players that could be playing baseball in the summer going to big showcases and elite level tournaments that are scouted heavily. That bothers me, but it is what it is! A baseball player, playing baseball, will never be responsible for hurting the game.
Very interesting discussion! I admit that we have seen a lot and that I'm partial!
My older son elected to stay with his local team despite having offers to play at a higher level. No matter what he would have decided it wouldn't have changed much of anything. Well, I guess it might have opened up a spot on the local team and he might have taken a spot from someone on the higher level team. I have a hard time figuring out how he could have had much of an impact on the game of baseball. When he quit playing basketball it didn't seem to hurt the game of basketball in our community.
My younger son did play on a travel team. I really don't think what he did had any impact either way on the game of baseball. I did notice that it helped him, though.
I agree that all those things you mentioned are very good for baseball. I also think those things are still happening from coast to coast.
I think I do understand where you might be coming from. Thinking of what's in the best interest of the game. I've gone on record as claiming baseball fans are more important than baseball players. Baseball fans are the ones who take the game to the next generation. That, to me, is the main reason why rec leagues, or baseball for everyone, needs to exist. There needs to be free or low cost options for those who want to play baseball, so they have every opportunity to fall in love with baseball.
No matter what our children do... They are not capable of ruining baseball. It's much bigger than they are.
I certainly believe that professional and college rosters would be full with or without showcases, travel teams, tournaments, camps, rec ball, or anything else... It's just my opinion that those rosters would involve some different players. That would be just fine, other than certain players with the ability to play at Arizona State, Clemson, North Carolina, Southern Cal, Stanford, you name the college... would never be seen by that college. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing, I only know that many young people (thousands) have benefited from it. Without it, it’s very likely that Carl Crawford would be a football player right now.
If we look at other popular sports, specifically football and basketball… the top recruits(for the most part) are going to showcases and camps We have great baseball prospects missing baseball events in the summer because they are also great football prospects and they are attending football camps and showcases. We have basketball players that could be playing baseball in the summer going to big showcases and elite level tournaments that are scouted heavily. That bothers me, but it is what it is! A baseball player, playing baseball, will never be responsible for hurting the game.
Very interesting discussion! I admit that we have seen a lot and that I'm partial!
I am not against showcases or for them. They have changed recruiting and scouting by creating a shopping mall one stop mentallity which in these times may be a good thing. They have however hurt the way things were done in the past where scouts would meet at local tornaments to look for prospects. We used to get 20-30 scouts at all of our tournaments but that is a thing of the past. It created some excitment that has dissapeared to a great extent.
Although we didn't showcase I cetainly think they are part of the evolution of BB. Getting a big time college was never an issue with us. We had interest from a few but only because we sent them a DVD. I know my son loved the College of Charleston and said he would have liked to go there. That is the only one he mentioned that he liked after playing at several great schools.
Although we didn't showcase I cetainly think they are part of the evolution of BB. Getting a big time college was never an issue with us. We had interest from a few but only because we sent them a DVD. I know my son loved the College of Charleston and said he would have liked to go there. That is the only one he mentioned that he liked after playing at several great schools.
quote:Originally posted by coach2709: Not every kid is cut out to go as far as they can in baseball. Some kids just want to show up and throw a ball and hit a ball and field a ball. I don't have a problem with that. I think these kids should have that opportunity but the kids who want to go farther should have their own opportunity.
Rec ball should be for the kids who want to show up and have a good time. Elite, travel, high school, college should be for the kids who want to strive farther in the game (or any sport for that matter).
Well, up until the comment about HS, I was pretty much agreein’ with ya. I’ve seen tons of HS players who will never go any farther, nor do they plan on it, and the same can be said about college players. I think you’re pretty much on track, but that broad brush is being used again and it just isn’t appropriate.
quote:But here are the problems - we are letting the soft hearts …
Broad brush again. The WE you used seems pretty darn inclusive to me, and that simply isn’t fair. There definitely are people like that, but it certainly isn’t everyone.
quote:Look at a typical classroom and you will find AP kids who are going to go onto college, you will find kids who are in the middle that might go to college or might go to work, you will find kids who are definately going to work after school and you will find kids with learning disabilities. Why put all these different types of levels together? It just doesn't make sense. Same with sports - why put the elite players in with the players who are just there for a good time?
EXCUSE ME?????? It sure appears that you want to deprive students because they don’t fit into your little niche, and that is bogus! How do you DEFINITELY know what a child in school is going to do with the rest of their life? The object is to educate them and hopefully they’ll decide to continue that education. It honestly sounds like when I went to school where the gals all got pushed into Home Ec and the Jocks all got pushed toward Shop. If a kid is eligible for those classes, I’d think what you’d want to see is s/he getting pushed to attend.
quote:Another problem is that rec ball is the only opportunity …
Too broad a brush again.
quote:In my opinion HS is about striving to be the best in each sport and playing at a high level. Now let's see how many people actually agree with me because there will be a lot who disagree. This creates a problem because it happens to rec ball and travel ball and elite ball. Everyone goes in with preconcieved notions about what they should expect and when it doesn't happen we got friction. Some people think rec ball is about having a good time while others think everytime you step foot onto the field it's about being the best you can be. I hate the phrase "it's about having fun" from my HS parents and makes me want to throw up. I just now found the parent who liked rec ball. Their perception of what HS is MUCH different than my perception of HS ball. Now we will have conflict.
You’re precisely correct. SOME people do act and think the way you describe them, but it certainly isn’t everyone. So who gets to make the decision that Bill gets to take a college prep class and play HS sports while Tom who is every bit as intelligent and skilled as an athlete gets to make birdhouses and watch the real athletes participate in sports, you? Why not me?
quote:So if a kid wants to play at the highest level possible then give them a team but if a kid wants to show up and have a good time then give them a team as well. I'm not going to coach the rec league player because that is not what I want. I want the pressure that comes with the highest levels. To me this is fun - I get my fun from the challenge from competing against myself and other players.
Not only is that ok, chances are you’re not the kind of coach the majority of people would want setting the example for their children. But, I know darned well there are coaches equally competent who get the most fulfillment and gratification in assisting those who need it the most. That’s why seats come in all kinds of different sizes, shapes, colors, and fabrics.
Wow Skeep way to either not understand or twist what I put for whatever reason. You totally missed all my points.
I'll concede that the one about HS is open to debate.
As for the WE you liked to highlight about the soft hearts (apparantly you may have taken this as directed towards you when it wasn't) you do realize you can use the word we and still not refer to everyone. We could pretty much just be about two people which leaves A LOT of people not included which you seem to be pretty adamant about. So in case you missed it when I say we I am talking only about the people who feel like myself that we are lessening standards and making too many accomadations just so more people can feel like they have accomplished something. That cheapens it for the ones who actually do accomplish something.
You have obviously never been in a classroom because mixing the different skill / knowledge levels makes teaching very difficult. I got anywhere from 50 minutes to 90 minutes to get students to understand my lesson. If I go at the pace that is good for the high end kids then what about the low end kids? What if I aim at the low end kids then how is the slower pace helping the high end kids? How about aiming towards the middle so we are still too slow for the high end kids but still to fast for the low end kids. That's the way to reach everyone.
Now the wonderous leaders of the education system have decided to "reach" all those different level students through differentied learning. Since most classes have the 4 levels of learners I just put now I have to come up with 4 different lesson plans to teach the exact same lesson. Surely you see the difficult task that lies in that.
You say the goal is to educate them but let me ask you what does it mean to educate someone? How do you measure that education? What are the standards to base it on? Its a much more difficult problem than to just let them get into classes and hope for the best.
Since you obviously missed the point of my post let me simplify it for you. Offer all classes to all students but test their level of skill and place them accordingly to that. Group the high end kids together and hammer down. Group the low end kids together and go at a pace which allows them to learn the material. And so on and so forth. Now if a kid wants to get into a class that is a higher level then let them but make them realize that the pace is faster and if they can't keep up then there is a chance of failure.
Don't give me the garbage excuse of "if they are in a low end class then they will think they are low end". You are putting them in a position to succeed and gain the same knowledge as the high end kids.
Plus I don't see a problem in giving aptitude tests around the 7th grade to find out what students are interested in and have a natural ability in and steer them towards that field. Now if they want to go against what the tests say that is fine. In fact there are some schools who are going towards something like this. They are called small learning communities. You take the school and break it up into different "schools" (like a university system) and after the freshman year they choose if they want to go into math or science or english or vocational or drama or whatever the school offers. You still teach the basics but concentrate on the area of focus.
Now as for you twisting what I put let me clarify something you misquoted
Way to leave off the most important part of the statement just so you can use your broad brush comment. There are places where rec ball is the only option. Travel teams or elite teams are not an option. The place where I grew up does not have travel or elite teams. So if you play baseball then you are playing in the rec league. Plus I doubt you are an expert on what every community can offer.
This statement really doesn't make any sense with what you took out of my post.
So you are saying that there are places where everyone is on the same page and there is no friction because one group doesn't see things differently than another group? If that is true then let me know the address so I can move there (assuming everyone there have the same views as I do). I was just trying to say that there will be friction in rec ball because some kids (not everyone - I got rid of that brush) won't take it seriously while others will take it seriously.
Now as for you wondering who's going to tell Bill and Tom what classes to take = let them make that decision for themselves. But give them an option of having a class where it will go at the pace they need to be successful in they strive a little too high.
This is the point I was trying to make which you failed to get - there are all kinds of people out there. Some are like me who want to be at the highest level (coaching and teaching). While others are just perfect for the ones who are just out there for a good time.
I'll concede that the one about HS is open to debate.
As for the WE you liked to highlight about the soft hearts (apparantly you may have taken this as directed towards you when it wasn't) you do realize you can use the word we and still not refer to everyone. We could pretty much just be about two people which leaves A LOT of people not included which you seem to be pretty adamant about. So in case you missed it when I say we I am talking only about the people who feel like myself that we are lessening standards and making too many accomadations just so more people can feel like they have accomplished something. That cheapens it for the ones who actually do accomplish something.
You have obviously never been in a classroom because mixing the different skill / knowledge levels makes teaching very difficult. I got anywhere from 50 minutes to 90 minutes to get students to understand my lesson. If I go at the pace that is good for the high end kids then what about the low end kids? What if I aim at the low end kids then how is the slower pace helping the high end kids? How about aiming towards the middle so we are still too slow for the high end kids but still to fast for the low end kids. That's the way to reach everyone.
Now the wonderous leaders of the education system have decided to "reach" all those different level students through differentied learning. Since most classes have the 4 levels of learners I just put now I have to come up with 4 different lesson plans to teach the exact same lesson. Surely you see the difficult task that lies in that.
You say the goal is to educate them but let me ask you what does it mean to educate someone? How do you measure that education? What are the standards to base it on? Its a much more difficult problem than to just let them get into classes and hope for the best.
Since you obviously missed the point of my post let me simplify it for you. Offer all classes to all students but test their level of skill and place them accordingly to that. Group the high end kids together and hammer down. Group the low end kids together and go at a pace which allows them to learn the material. And so on and so forth. Now if a kid wants to get into a class that is a higher level then let them but make them realize that the pace is faster and if they can't keep up then there is a chance of failure.
Don't give me the garbage excuse of "if they are in a low end class then they will think they are low end". You are putting them in a position to succeed and gain the same knowledge as the high end kids.
Plus I don't see a problem in giving aptitude tests around the 7th grade to find out what students are interested in and have a natural ability in and steer them towards that field. Now if they want to go against what the tests say that is fine. In fact there are some schools who are going towards something like this. They are called small learning communities. You take the school and break it up into different "schools" (like a university system) and after the freshman year they choose if they want to go into math or science or english or vocational or drama or whatever the school offers. You still teach the basics but concentrate on the area of focus.
Now as for you twisting what I put let me clarify something you misquoted
quote:Another problem is that rec ball is the only opportunity some communities offer for kids to play
Way to leave off the most important part of the statement just so you can use your broad brush comment. There are places where rec ball is the only option. Travel teams or elite teams are not an option. The place where I grew up does not have travel or elite teams. So if you play baseball then you are playing in the rec league. Plus I doubt you are an expert on what every community can offer.
This statement really doesn't make any sense with what you took out of my post.
quote:You’re precisely correct. SOME people do act and think the way you describe them, but it certainly isn’t everyone. So who gets to make the decision that Bill gets to take a college prep class and play HS sports while Tom who is every bit as intelligent and skilled as an athlete gets to make birdhouses and watch the real athletes participate in sports, you? Why not me?
So you are saying that there are places where everyone is on the same page and there is no friction because one group doesn't see things differently than another group? If that is true then let me know the address so I can move there (assuming everyone there have the same views as I do). I was just trying to say that there will be friction in rec ball because some kids (not everyone - I got rid of that brush) won't take it seriously while others will take it seriously.
Now as for you wondering who's going to tell Bill and Tom what classes to take = let them make that decision for themselves. But give them an option of having a class where it will go at the pace they need to be successful in they strive a little too high.
quote:Not only is that ok, chances are you’re not the kind of coach the majority of people would want setting the example for their children. But, I know darned well there are coaches equally competent who get the most fulfillment and gratification in assisting those who need it the most. That’s why seats come in all kinds of different sizes, shapes, colors, and fabrics.
This is the point I was trying to make which you failed to get - there are all kinds of people out there. Some are like me who want to be at the highest level (coaching and teaching). While others are just perfect for the ones who are just out there for a good time.
Also, I am not going to reply to anything you put here because this is going in a totally different direction of the original point of the thread.
If you have something you would like to discuss further start a new thread or PM me. I believe I have done a good job of explaining myself.
If you have something you would like to discuss further start a new thread or PM me. I believe I have done a good job of explaining myself.
Bobbleheaddoll,
"Julie is that the same twins that just left Toronto this AM ?"
OUCH! They didn't have a very successful road trip, did they? I'm still optimistic for the Twins to have a strong September, but my hubby is not...
Julie
"Julie is that the same twins that just left Toronto this AM ?"
OUCH! They didn't have a very successful road trip, did they? I'm still optimistic for the Twins to have a strong September, but my hubby is not...
Julie
reading this thread ,and many others like it have made me think. (thats not always a good thing.)
there are many people here who's son's play at a very high level. i am assuming there are some who's son's don't play at the elite level. but still are part of the game of baseball.
i'm not really up on stats but i'd bet there are far more ok players than elite players. all the ok players aren't going to play travel ball,most will not have a need for a showcase.
but without those ok player's where would baseball be ? hurting. they are all important for the good of the game.
while i agree there comes a point that a player finds he has progressed to the point he needs to step up another level. what i see is more and more false levels,teams started up so that more kids are playing travel ball. that isn't helping anyone.
does it feel to you that most advice here is aimed at the elite player? is that the way it should be? do the ok players need any tips from us?
when we say "baseball" do we mean everyone, just the elite, just the ok guy's ?
just some of my thoughts.
there are many people here who's son's play at a very high level. i am assuming there are some who's son's don't play at the elite level. but still are part of the game of baseball.
i'm not really up on stats but i'd bet there are far more ok players than elite players. all the ok players aren't going to play travel ball,most will not have a need for a showcase.
but without those ok player's where would baseball be ? hurting. they are all important for the good of the game.
while i agree there comes a point that a player finds he has progressed to the point he needs to step up another level. what i see is more and more false levels,teams started up so that more kids are playing travel ball. that isn't helping anyone.
does it feel to you that most advice here is aimed at the elite player? is that the way it should be? do the ok players need any tips from us?
when we say "baseball" do we mean everyone, just the elite, just the ok guy's ?
just some of my thoughts.
The ok players still and always will continue to need a venue to play baseball . For fun, for sportsmanship and everything else. I would probably venture out and say most or a lot of the posters here have kids that play or will play at the next level after HS.
I found this site when my son was getting ready to try out for the HS team. There was a list of what to do to make the HS team.Seems like yesterday.
This site is helpful to all types of players.
I found this site when my son was getting ready to try out for the HS team. There was a list of what to do to make the HS team.Seems like yesterday.
This site is helpful to all types of players.
quote:My older son elected to stay with his local team despite having offers to play at a higher level. No matter what he would have decided it wouldn't have changed much of anything.
PG Staff I agree 100%. But at the same time we should recognize that it does change things ever so slightly. Maybe its like 1 person voting. However the impact felt by travel teams around here is very obvious maybe because it happen with groups of players. On the other side of the argument we just recently opened a beautiful new 17 field facility (baseball/softball) slightly out of town that caters mostly to travel teams but is starting to allow more local play. The main selling point of the sportsplex was the positive economic impact generated by the influx of travel teams $$$$. Sounds good. I am glad the developmnet happened but at the same time it also confirms that money is influencing youth sports more and more and does make good baseball more difficult if not impossible for some. Hopefully this activity will revitalize youth baseball in our town but I have my doubts. I know our community will sacrifice the small fields scattered throughout the neighborhoods (that used to draw baseball families together) for this one big "money making" travel complex. Things are changing. Time will tell how this plays out.
Fungo
PS: I feel as if phase two of this scenario will happen a few years down the road when the Sportsplex donates $1,000.00 to the RBI program ---- "Return baseball to the Innercity"
quote:Originally posted by Fungo:...Each year the travel teams get younger and younger and more numerous. Rec ball gets weaker and weaker. The sad thing is today's travel teams are nothing more than yesterday's rec teams with new uniforms, team fees, paid coaches, and prouder parents that stay in hotels. Are coaches better? They are now but they are the same coaches rec ball had...
Nicely stated!
I can't speak for what's going on across the nation, but I'll tell you what I observe right around here.
Little Leagues used to promote kids ahead, or cut kids back, to group players by ability. That allowed kids to enjoy the game at a level where they could compete enough to have fun. That's as opposed to having the weaker hitters face pitchers they couldn't hope to succeed against and vice versa.
Now they lump all the kids in together, grouping only according to age. This starts a vicious cycle where the less talented kids struggle so much they drop out, and the more talented kids feel so unchallenged they leave for travel ball. Rec league numbers drop like a stone as they bleed players from both ends of the spectrum.
All this started because we were so afraid of hurting someone's feelings by cutting them. Great, now they don't play baseball anywhere at all.
In the meantime, our local LL has decided basically to bail on the whole notion of teaching the game. Practices are like recess and coaches are taught not so much to instruct as to handle the kids like the coaches were all striving to be Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Don't strive, you're already special, no need to worry about learning or improving, put on a happy face.
The games, by the way, are a nightmare to watch. Mind-numbingly slow and boring. Walks and walks and walks. 12-year-old kids who cannot catch a routine grounder or pop-up. Errors by the score.
And the emphasis is all about the games. Rainout? It's OK, we only had one practice scheduled this week but we'll play the game in that time slot and not practice at all. Instead of Billy taking 50 grounders in practice, maybe someone will hit him 1 or 2 during the game. During the 3 innings he gets to play, that is.
Sometimes I think these games are more about playing dress-up than playing baseball. Because none of these kids play the game away from their LL events. Remember back in the day when you played with the kids in the neighborhood, or out in the street, every day of the week all summer long? Show me one place where that happens any more. Somewhere in the U.S., that is. (You can find it in Latin America!)
Want to play for real? The local LL is spawning all sorts of travel teams. Instead of having travel teams be elite talent only, we now have teams basically doing what LL used to do -- teach the game and allow players to seek out competition commensurate with their own level. The LL leadership basically says, if you want instruction and competition, hit the road. Here we just goof around on a ball field.
If we would just go back to the old system where players were grouped by ability and not strictly by age, it'd work out fine.
There have always been, and will always be, parents who gripe long and loud if junior gets cut. What's changed is that the leadership apparently no longer has the spine to stick by a decision. We've let the gripers take us down this path to where rec ball, which used to be reasonably good, has become focused on the lowest common denominator.
I'm all for having a place for the lesser athletic kids can play the game and learn to love it. I just don't understand why we cannot do that in a setting that actually teaches them the fundamentals, so that they can teach them to their own children in turn some day. We're basically giving the more knowledgeable coaches and the more athletic kids the back of our hand and telling them to go elsewhere.
No wonder they do.
And by the way, how does the current system serve the "late bloomer"? When I was 12, I was cut back a level. But I ended up playing college ball. Today, even if a kid like me sticks with the game, he would reach HS age without anyone teaching him anything, and likely would not make his HS team.
Little Leagues used to promote kids ahead, or cut kids back, to group players by ability. That allowed kids to enjoy the game at a level where they could compete enough to have fun. That's as opposed to having the weaker hitters face pitchers they couldn't hope to succeed against and vice versa.
Now they lump all the kids in together, grouping only according to age. This starts a vicious cycle where the less talented kids struggle so much they drop out, and the more talented kids feel so unchallenged they leave for travel ball. Rec league numbers drop like a stone as they bleed players from both ends of the spectrum.
All this started because we were so afraid of hurting someone's feelings by cutting them. Great, now they don't play baseball anywhere at all.
In the meantime, our local LL has decided basically to bail on the whole notion of teaching the game. Practices are like recess and coaches are taught not so much to instruct as to handle the kids like the coaches were all striving to be Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Don't strive, you're already special, no need to worry about learning or improving, put on a happy face.
The games, by the way, are a nightmare to watch. Mind-numbingly slow and boring. Walks and walks and walks. 12-year-old kids who cannot catch a routine grounder or pop-up. Errors by the score.
And the emphasis is all about the games. Rainout? It's OK, we only had one practice scheduled this week but we'll play the game in that time slot and not practice at all. Instead of Billy taking 50 grounders in practice, maybe someone will hit him 1 or 2 during the game. During the 3 innings he gets to play, that is.
Sometimes I think these games are more about playing dress-up than playing baseball. Because none of these kids play the game away from their LL events. Remember back in the day when you played with the kids in the neighborhood, or out in the street, every day of the week all summer long? Show me one place where that happens any more. Somewhere in the U.S., that is. (You can find it in Latin America!)
Want to play for real? The local LL is spawning all sorts of travel teams. Instead of having travel teams be elite talent only, we now have teams basically doing what LL used to do -- teach the game and allow players to seek out competition commensurate with their own level. The LL leadership basically says, if you want instruction and competition, hit the road. Here we just goof around on a ball field.
If we would just go back to the old system where players were grouped by ability and not strictly by age, it'd work out fine.
There have always been, and will always be, parents who gripe long and loud if junior gets cut. What's changed is that the leadership apparently no longer has the spine to stick by a decision. We've let the gripers take us down this path to where rec ball, which used to be reasonably good, has become focused on the lowest common denominator.
I'm all for having a place for the lesser athletic kids can play the game and learn to love it. I just don't understand why we cannot do that in a setting that actually teaches them the fundamentals, so that they can teach them to their own children in turn some day. We're basically giving the more knowledgeable coaches and the more athletic kids the back of our hand and telling them to go elsewhere.
No wonder they do.
And by the way, how does the current system serve the "late bloomer"? When I was 12, I was cut back a level. But I ended up playing college ball. Today, even if a kid like me sticks with the game, he would reach HS age without anyone teaching him anything, and likely would not make his HS team.
Amen Midlo Amen
Midlo
Isn't that what that league wanted to do with the 9 yr old pitcher who they said was to good to pitch? They had teams for less experienced players and wanted the better pitcher moved up or play with more talented players.... Everyone yelled that it was unfair. can't win
Isn't that what that league wanted to do with the 9 yr old pitcher who they said was to good to pitch? They had teams for less experienced players and wanted the better pitcher moved up or play with more talented players.... Everyone yelled that it was unfair. can't win
Fungo it isn't that the kids get younger and younger, we get older and older.
Some rec coaches actually develop their game too but very few move up to the Elite level. My son's rec team had a former MiLB pitcher and a pro fast ball pitcher as 2 of the 5 coaches. That was a fluke and not the norm. Most were just volunteer parents with little BB experience at the young ages. It was mandated that they had to get every kid into a game and rotate them except catching.
The hard part that I saw was kids with talent lose interest when the level of play is too poor. Once the guys got older, the ones who still played got better. Some just didn't want to play travel ball. They were not dedicated to the game. The kids who got to midget age often dropped out because of jobs and girls. Their interests changed.
Some rec coaches actually develop their game too but very few move up to the Elite level. My son's rec team had a former MiLB pitcher and a pro fast ball pitcher as 2 of the 5 coaches. That was a fluke and not the norm. Most were just volunteer parents with little BB experience at the young ages. It was mandated that they had to get every kid into a game and rotate them except catching.
The hard part that I saw was kids with talent lose interest when the level of play is too poor. Once the guys got older, the ones who still played got better. Some just didn't want to play travel ball. They were not dedicated to the game. The kids who got to midget age often dropped out because of jobs and girls. Their interests changed.
A problem in some leagues is those coaches who DO teach the game...who DO develop the players...are the coaches who's teams always win and that does not sit well with the PC parents...and those coaches sometimes get fed up with the politics and leave to start and coach travel teams.
In our area it would be very hard to start your own team if not impossible. What they did here was conspire to get a coach kicked out and take his place.
The parks are very tightly controlled by a couple leagues and you need money to commit to the parks.
Also the teams get new uniforms every year and usually 3 of them plus bags and other equipment.
The parks are very tightly controlled by a couple leagues and you need money to commit to the parks.
Also the teams get new uniforms every year and usually 3 of them plus bags and other equipment.
NJBB,
I didn't follow that whole situation completely, just a little, but I don't think it is the same situation.
First, the boy wasn't really doing anything that unusual or special for his age group. So to me, it was sad that the state of the level of play in that rec league was so low that his rather average MPH (40 was what was reported) was considered too scary for his opposition.
Second, I think that situation actually supports my point. That kid was told that if he wanted to really play, he'd have to go elsewhere, because League Commissioner Harrison Bergeron did not want him hurting anyone's feelings by making them feel inadequate in the rec league.
Now, if that kid threw 60 or something, moving him up would have been appropriate. As it was, they basically told a fairly average player to get lost, you're too good for what we do here.
To me, if a kid cannot hit 40 mph pitching at age 9, he needs instruction, practice, and maybe to drop back to play at his own level. Punishing the achiever is not the right approach, at least not if you hope to keep him and others like him around. But as I've said, I think they're making it clear, they don't really care if they do stick around.
Also, to JT -- been there, seen that too!
I didn't follow that whole situation completely, just a little, but I don't think it is the same situation.
First, the boy wasn't really doing anything that unusual or special for his age group. So to me, it was sad that the state of the level of play in that rec league was so low that his rather average MPH (40 was what was reported) was considered too scary for his opposition.
Second, I think that situation actually supports my point. That kid was told that if he wanted to really play, he'd have to go elsewhere, because League Commissioner Harrison Bergeron did not want him hurting anyone's feelings by making them feel inadequate in the rec league.
Now, if that kid threw 60 or something, moving him up would have been appropriate. As it was, they basically told a fairly average player to get lost, you're too good for what we do here.
To me, if a kid cannot hit 40 mph pitching at age 9, he needs instruction, practice, and maybe to drop back to play at his own level. Punishing the achiever is not the right approach, at least not if you hope to keep him and others like him around. But as I've said, I think they're making it clear, they don't really care if they do stick around.
Also, to JT -- been there, seen that too!
Midlo Dad,
The situation in New Haven was reported in various ways, but I believe that the facts that emerged are: The pitcher already plays on a Pony team in New Haven, and is middle of the pack in talent in that league. Halfway through the rec league season, he was brought onto one of the rec teams, and became "too fast to hit". The rec league is aimed at kids who have little baseball experience.
If this presentation of the facts is correct, then this kid moved down (as opposed to being asked by the rec league to move up), and thus went from average to stud. If I understood your point made earlier in this thread, you wouldn't advise him to play in the rec league, since he was already at the correct level in Pony.
The situation in New Haven was reported in various ways, but I believe that the facts that emerged are: The pitcher already plays on a Pony team in New Haven, and is middle of the pack in talent in that league. Halfway through the rec league season, he was brought onto one of the rec teams, and became "too fast to hit". The rec league is aimed at kids who have little baseball experience.
If this presentation of the facts is correct, then this kid moved down (as opposed to being asked by the rec league to move up), and thus went from average to stud. If I understood your point made earlier in this thread, you wouldn't advise him to play in the rec league, since he was already at the correct level in Pony.