Daque
Are you here under a new name---your logic seems strangely familiar
quote:The kids get themselves ready, not the coaches.
Daque,
I couldn't disagree more! And I am goinig to apply this to a talented pianist prodigy at age 5. That 5 year olds parents upon seeing the natural talent aren't gonna sit around and do nothing to help their kid, no, they are gonna go out there and buy the best piano, find the best instructor even if they have to remortgage the house to do so. Those parents know that even with good talent comes the innability to become perfect without honing skills and direction.
So when the parents of a talented youth baseball player seek to find a good travel team with coaches that are good and care about their kid, and also seek perhaps on the side professional training they are trying to secure that their kid will have the best opportunity to learn and gain experience in a trusted directed manner.
Your logic is flawed! If you don't like travel ball just say so, but don't try to convince me that travel ball before HS does nothing- its a load of ****! My son has been working with one of the best hitting instructors around off and on for 4 years. Going into HS he is going to have a definate advantage because he has learned that there is room for improvement. the rec coaches he has had hasn't even worked with him because they feel nothing needs fixed!
On average, there is a major difference between rec ball coaching and travel team coaching. I have seen good travel team coaches also coach rec ball and take last place teams into #1 teams- and it is "all because of the coaching"!
I have coached and enjoyed both rec and travel. You believe that travel on the small diamond is important to player development and I do not. What is the problem with batting that couldn't be fixed in 4 years?
You state in part, "So when the parents of a talented youth baseball player...." So long as you leave the word, "youth" in the statement all remains fine. You will not know until about age 16 whether or not he will end up as a talented baseball player. Enjoy the ride and the moment for however long it lasts. Good luck to you and your son.
You state in part, "So when the parents of a talented youth baseball player...." So long as you leave the word, "youth" in the statement all remains fine. You will not know until about age 16 whether or not he will end up as a talented baseball player. Enjoy the ride and the moment for however long it lasts. Good luck to you and your son.
quote:Are you here under a new name---your logic seems strangely familiar
Nope.
I can see that this string is getting too testy so this will be my last post on topic. It is to the point that I am repeating myself. Things deteriorate when a debate turns into an argument.
In summary, my position is that small diamond travel, while fun, is not necessary to move on in the game. There are no skills that cannot be learned in small diamond travel that cannot be learned in one season of play on the full sized diamond. If a player shows talent on the full sized diamond, it is important to his development to play with and against the best possible which translates to travel and perhaps show case.
There are good and bad coaches in rec and in travel. Most parents do not know which are which.
Innate ability can be only improved slightly. Coaches should offer opportunities for the player to learn. Skills and nuances of the game can be improved with adequate coaching but only to the level that innate ability allows. The mental aspect of the game is neglected in youth baseball.
I wish you all well. Fin.
small diamond travel: 1 ... My son primarily played LL through age twelve. He played some travel on the side.quote:Originally posted by Daque:
This question concerns players with the innate physical abilities to play HS baseball, not those on the bubble.
The scale: 1 is not important and 10 is extremely important.
On the rating system given, how important in your experience to making the HS team is having played small diamond travel ball?
60/90 from 13U on: 8 ... The reason I chose 8 is I believe my son would have started on varsity his junior year regardless. But I believe the teen years travel ball bought him a year. Sophs don't usually start at our high school. He said he only saw one high school pitcher significantly better than the best 16U travel pitchers.
Athletes like Woods and Navratolova are abnormalities. There are a lot more Marinovch's or kids we've never heard of. When I see MLB talk about the advantage of kids playing travel earlier I think of 13U to 15U, not 12U and younger.quote:Originally posted by Brian Shanberg:quote:Originally posted by Daque:
This question concerns players with the innate physical abilities to play HS baseball, not those on the bubble.
The scale: 1 is not important and 10 is extremely important.
On the rating system given, how important in your experience to making the HS team is having played small diamond travel ball?
No one can answer that. Although you may feel you already know the answer...
Ask yourself this: How important was it that Tiger Woods learned golf and muscle memory between the ages of 2 and 12? How important is it that Martina Navratolova is teaching tennis to Russian 5 year olds. Those 5 year old females from Russia that begin at 5 (including Maria Sharapova) are now adults and dominating the tennis circuit.
MLB.com had an article saying they believed travel ball at a younger ages is what is leading to all the talent they are seeing now.
There is value in playing for quality coaches at a young age. I think you would agree that as its true in almost every sport. Not sure why people think baseball is exempt from early development and muscle memory.
quote:And I am goinig to apply this to a talented pianist prodigy at age 5. That 5 year olds parents upon seeing the natural talent aren't gonna sit around and do nothing to help their kid, no, they are gonna go out there and buy the best piano, find the best instructor even if they have to remortgage the house to do so. Those parents know that even with good talent comes the innability to become perfect without honing skills and direction.
The size of the piano doesn't change when the kid turns thirteen.
The MLB article specifically stated travel ball at the younger ages. There is a list of articles in the MLB 2009 Draft section.
Also, Martina Navratolova is coaching 5 year olds from Russia. She's having huge success with the 5 year olds as they mature. If they can hit well at 6 or 7 years old, she flies them to the US and turns them over to Bollierri in Florida.
Look at the top 100 rankings in pro women tennis. More than half of them are Russian. They are kicking everyones butt right now because they are heavily investing in their youth.
A few Asian countries started doing this with womens golf a few years ago. Get ready, cause in the next few years, Golf will be dominated by Asian women simply because they are starting young and teaching muscle memory at very young ages.
I don't dispute the value of natural talent. No questions there. But, you guys seem to undervalue the benefit of good coaching and experience gained at the youth levels. There's no monopoly on good coaches. They could be in travel or rec all-stars, but there is value in starting at a young age.
They good ones start young in almost every sport. Swimmers start at 7. That's a travel sport. Golfers start young. That's a travel sport. Why do you feel baseball players would not benefit starting at a young age?
Its almost like you are suggesting a kid should sit on the couch playing Gamecube until they are 14 and then, if they have big parents, try out and see if they are a natural or not.
I still don't really understand your point in this topic. Are you saying travel ball at a young age is bad or counterproductive?
Also, Martina Navratolova is coaching 5 year olds from Russia. She's having huge success with the 5 year olds as they mature. If they can hit well at 6 or 7 years old, she flies them to the US and turns them over to Bollierri in Florida.
Look at the top 100 rankings in pro women tennis. More than half of them are Russian. They are kicking everyones butt right now because they are heavily investing in their youth.
A few Asian countries started doing this with womens golf a few years ago. Get ready, cause in the next few years, Golf will be dominated by Asian women simply because they are starting young and teaching muscle memory at very young ages.
I don't dispute the value of natural talent. No questions there. But, you guys seem to undervalue the benefit of good coaching and experience gained at the youth levels. There's no monopoly on good coaches. They could be in travel or rec all-stars, but there is value in starting at a young age.
They good ones start young in almost every sport. Swimmers start at 7. That's a travel sport. Golfers start young. That's a travel sport. Why do you feel baseball players would not benefit starting at a young age?
Its almost like you are suggesting a kid should sit on the couch playing Gamecube until they are 14 and then, if they have big parents, try out and see if they are a natural or not.
I still don't really understand your point in this topic. Are you saying travel ball at a young age is bad or counterproductive?
Just putting my 2 cents in. I read somewhere 70%
of kids stop playing by the age of 13. I don't care
my son plays travelball or not.But he does
for starters he loves baseball and playing in tournaments is more baseball and alot of fun.He also
is bored with rec ball but wants to play with his friends.As for the quality of coaches both have good
and bad coaches.
of kids stop playing by the age of 13. I don't care
my son plays travelball or not.But he does
for starters he loves baseball and playing in tournaments is more baseball and alot of fun.He also
is bored with rec ball but wants to play with his friends.As for the quality of coaches both have good
and bad coaches.
Baseball is a funny game. It is the only sport where people think that getting good coaching and playing against the best at an early age is a bad thing. It is the only sport that thinks being a man among boys and having early success is a bad thing.
How many times have you heard the term "manchild" or man among boys being a bad thing in basketball or football or hockey or s****r or tennis or any other sport?
Phoenix is a baseball crazy town. HS teams are often bigger than the football teams. All I see in travel are a lot of big, talented kids honing their skills against other big talented kids. I cannot believe this is a bad thing in any way, shape or form.
How many times have you heard the term "manchild" or man among boys being a bad thing in basketball or football or hockey or s****r or tennis or any other sport?
Phoenix is a baseball crazy town. HS teams are often bigger than the football teams. All I see in travel are a lot of big, talented kids honing their skills against other big talented kids. I cannot believe this is a bad thing in any way, shape or form.
quote:Its almost like you are suggesting a kid should sit on the couch playing Gamecube until they are 14 and then, if they have big parents, try out and see if they are a natural or not.
I still don't really understand your point in this topic. Are you saying travel ball at a young age is bad or counterproductive?
I agree with that also.
It would be ridiculous to think that travel ball before HS is a waste of time or no better than rec ball. Rec ball, on average, just does not prepare the "good kids" to the level required in todays competetive HS and legion ball. The reason being is threefold-
1. The quality of the opposition is not up to par
2. The quality of the coaching is not up to par
3. The amount of games (experience) is not up to par.
Rec ball leagues usually play around 4 months out of the year including all-star play. A batter may get in a 100 at bats if he is lucky, most of them at bats coming against slower than average pitchers. The majority of rec ball coaches have never even picked up an official rule book and read it so they do not even know the rules. The majority of rec ball coaches have no clue on defensive positioning, pitch sequence strategy, offensive a-b-c baseball, etc. Rec ball coaches teach things like-
How to swing the bat as the ball comes at the batter or how to bend over to field a ball coming at you or how to throw to a cut-off man instaed of just winging it as hard as you can.
Lastly- the opposition just plain- sucks!!! When pitchers can't even break the 60-65 mph barrier at age twelve or thirteen you have problems- everything is a big fat meatball coming at you. This is why I said earlier that when my son plays rec ball he does so to get more batting practice in, not to improve his skill against hitting off pitchers.
Kids who just play rec ball get a false sense of security heading into HS. They just are not prepared, even the good kids. And one year in HS just can't teach them everything that the travel kid of 4 years has under his belt with true experience. I am not saying that the rec kid won't catch up, he very well will, but in my opinion it won't be in one simple year!
You're misinterpreting. No one said it was bad. A kid can get good coaching in rec ball. There are plenty of young age travel coaches who are great at recruiting and terrible at teaching the game. The relevance of preteen travel is being questioned. This as far as I go with this debate. We've gone around in circles on this one before. I haven't changed my mind. And the older my son gets older (high school, 16U and 18U ball) and I see players develop or fall by the side of the road, the more cemented my beliefs become based on the evidence before me.quote:Baseball is a funny game. It is the only sport where people think that getting good coaching and playing against the best at an early age is a bad thing. It is the only sport that thinks being a man among boys and having early success is a bad thing.
It doesn't matter where someone was born or lives. Either they can play or they can't. You can't buy talent. A marginally talented player can't acquire talent by playing more. He can only get a little bit better. You can only cultivate talent.
Note: Yes my son played community based (advanced rec to me) travel from 9-12. It was just for playing through the summer, not training for some grander moment. Mostly at 11-12 he was busy with his LL all-star team into August. We passed on 7/8 machine pitch all-stars to go on vacation in July.
quote:Originally posted by Daque:
This question concerns players with the innate physical abilities to play HS baseball, not those on the bubble.
The scale: 1 is not important and 10 is extremely important.
On the rating system given, how important in your experience to making the HS team is having played small diamond travel ball?
In my son's case, the rating = 2. My son played only rec and all-stars at that level and was a starter on the HS varsity. I give it a rating of 2 because by playing rec, he got selected to the all-star team every summer and the talent was much better in summer tournament ball.
Well,
Everything is relevant I guess. My son is going to be competing with 5-7 D1 guys for playing time. The others are going to be playing after HS also. High end JUCO, draft picks and other Divisions. Everybody on the team has talent, experience, hard work and dedication.
I would rather he be prepared for the experience.
Everything is relevant I guess. My son is going to be competing with 5-7 D1 guys for playing time. The others are going to be playing after HS also. High end JUCO, draft picks and other Divisions. Everybody on the team has talent, experience, hard work and dedication.
I would rather he be prepared for the experience.
quote:Originally posted by Daque:
ctandc: OK, since you are tuned into your local area's youth baseball scene, let me ask you a pretty simple question. What percent of the small field travel ball is daddyball? Mas o menos. (More or less)
Not much. They normally start every year, then by the end of the season, all their good players have left.
quote:My son is going to be competing with 5-7 D1 guys for playing time
Which HS is this?
Pinnacle HS. Unfortunately for us, none of them are pitchers. 
But they can really hit!
But they can really hit!
I've been reading the message boards and getting a lot of information from this site for a couple of years, but this is my lst time to post.
My son played LL ball from ages 4-8. We started
select because he was getting frustrated. The LL coach actually told him not to throw the ball so hard to the lst baseman because he couldn't catch it and he could get hurt. My son was playing at SS.
It seemed to me that playing LL was holding back my
son's development.
Also, I have two grown sons who played Dixie Youth BB. They were always (from TBALL to HS) chosen for the All-Star teams and I can honestly say that they learned more in the three to four weeks of All-Star play than they learned in the entire season of regular league ball. The coaches were able to teach them at a higher level and expect more. thus the players were able to deliver more. The same concept applies in the world of education (I'm a teacher.)......."dumb down" the curriculum and see what happens. Kids who are capable and want to be challenged in their education will go elsewhere (if there parents are on-board and can afford it).
My son played LL ball from ages 4-8. We started
select because he was getting frustrated. The LL coach actually told him not to throw the ball so hard to the lst baseman because he couldn't catch it and he could get hurt. My son was playing at SS.
It seemed to me that playing LL was holding back my
son's development.
Also, I have two grown sons who played Dixie Youth BB. They were always (from TBALL to HS) chosen for the All-Star teams and I can honestly say that they learned more in the three to four weeks of All-Star play than they learned in the entire season of regular league ball. The coaches were able to teach them at a higher level and expect more. thus the players were able to deliver more. The same concept applies in the world of education (I'm a teacher.)......."dumb down" the curriculum and see what happens. Kids who are capable and want to be challenged in their education will go elsewhere (if there parents are on-board and can afford it).
quote:My son played LL ball from ages 4-8. We started
select because he was getting frustrated. The LL coach actually told him not to throw the ball so hard to the lst baseman because he couldn't catch it and he could get hurt. My son was playing at SS.
It seemed to me that playing LL was holding back my
son's development.
My son faced those things in rec ball too. He was pitching in the league playoffs as an 11 yr old and one kid flat-out refused to go to bat because my son threw too hard. Instead of forfeiting the AB and winning the league championship, they let the next batter up and with 2 out , runners on 2nd& 3rd, the batter hits a soft grounder to the kid playing 2B, fumbled the ball, held on to it but froze not knowing what to do with the ball even though there was still time to get the play at 1B, all the while, 2 runs came in and we lost...Everyone watched in shock but what are you gonna do....I'm sure the kid felt pretty bad but it wasn't the end of the world. . That's rec ball..It is what it is.
Eventually, these things will draw better players away from rec ball to more competitive ball going up with and against players of similar skills.When it gets to that point, they should be playing against better competition. It's not that fun for better players playing with kids who can't play the game.
My son play travel ball once he got on the big field because in part, the local rec leagues get a big drop off from ages 12 to 13 and there aren't that many teams in the local league. For 2 more seasons he played both rec and travel but once he started playing HS ball, rec was done. It was time for him to start playing with and against the better players in the area.
While I don't think kids on small diamonds necessarily need to play select, travel, elite or whatever name you call it to guarentee a spot on a HS varsity roster, playing better competition and getting good coaching can make a player better.
Playwithheart I think you gave Daque his answer.
"We started select because he was getting frustrated. The LL coach actually told him not to throw the ball so hard to the lst baseman because he couldn't catch it and he could get hurt. My son was playing at SS.
It seemed to me that playing LL was holding back my
son's development."
This also happened to me and mine.
"The coaches were able to teach them at a higher level and
"expect more."
thus the players were able to deliver more."
"The same concept applies in the world of education (I'm a teacher.)......."dumb down" the curriculum and see what happens. Kids who are capable and want to be challenged in their education will go elsewhere (if there parents are on-board and can afford it)."
The parent of an incoming freshmen going to a private school, that teaches, and expects, excelling.
Bottom line, playing dumbed down baseball at any age, causes problems.
Playing advanced baseball at any age, puts the kid and the parent on a higher plane. And each individual, determines whether it has helped, or not, make it to the next level.
It ain't the bus it's the road, the more traveled one. :]
"We started select because he was getting frustrated. The LL coach actually told him not to throw the ball so hard to the lst baseman because he couldn't catch it and he could get hurt. My son was playing at SS.
It seemed to me that playing LL was holding back my
son's development."
This also happened to me and mine.
"The coaches were able to teach them at a higher level and
"expect more."
thus the players were able to deliver more."
"The same concept applies in the world of education (I'm a teacher.)......."dumb down" the curriculum and see what happens. Kids who are capable and want to be challenged in their education will go elsewhere (if there parents are on-board and can afford it)."
The parent of an incoming freshmen going to a private school, that teaches, and expects, excelling.
Bottom line, playing dumbed down baseball at any age, causes problems.
Playing advanced baseball at any age, puts the kid and the parent on a higher plane. And each individual, determines whether it has helped, or not, make it to the next level.
It ain't the bus it's the road, the more traveled one. :]
Rec ball, as much as I dislike it for the "good" players, has it's proper place though. As someone mentioned earlier, the selection to all-stars at the end of the regular season allows friends to play together and be more competetive and have better coaching.
The funny thing about this thread is this-
Everyone who has any common sense will agree that any youth player will be better off with 4 years of travel experience versus rec ball experience under his belt heading into HS.
Does this mean that travel ball is required for a kid to make the HS team? NO, and that is the other part that is funny about this thread-
Because it doesn't "greatly matter" if a kid plays travel ball or rec ball, or even both, why the debate on if "travel ball" does any good before they hit the big field?
Common sense people- common sense! Thats like asking this silly question- who do you want flying your plane- a blind and deaf man or one who isn't?
The funny thing about this thread is this-
Everyone who has any common sense will agree that any youth player will be better off with 4 years of travel experience versus rec ball experience under his belt heading into HS.
Does this mean that travel ball is required for a kid to make the HS team? NO, and that is the other part that is funny about this thread-
Because it doesn't "greatly matter" if a kid plays travel ball or rec ball, or even both, why the debate on if "travel ball" does any good before they hit the big field?
Common sense people- common sense! Thats like asking this silly question- who do you want flying your plane- a blind and deaf man or one who isn't?
Some members on this board have a knack for distorting what was said and picking out tid bits out of context. Why personalize an inellectual debate?
I don't think any good ball player would play rec ball for very long. In our area all 8-9 yos register with rec teams and indicate that they would like to tryout for the all star travel team. If you tried out and were cut you went to rec ball. Every year you could tryout again. I can tell you it is hard to break into a travel team once you were cut. The same coaches and players tended to move up each year. These travel team traveled up to a couple hundred miles away but rarely to the US.
We also had elite teams which were very expensive because they traveled all over the US and they had much better coaches whose mandate was to get their players ready for college and higher.
To me this discussion really centers around money and time commitment. These were developmental teams and they cost several thousand dollars. If you had intention to play US college ball or were serious ball players, this is where you wanted to play.
A good ball player adjusts to the diamond size without any problems. It is not about muscle memory but about arm strength and over all strength.
I agree with fan. Many ball players develop later in their careers and often are not given a chance. The different level of travel teams we had allowed the not so elite player to develop and the elite coaches scouted the other travel and HS teams looking for these players who were starting to break out.
We also had elite teams which were very expensive because they traveled all over the US and they had much better coaches whose mandate was to get their players ready for college and higher.
To me this discussion really centers around money and time commitment. These were developmental teams and they cost several thousand dollars. If you had intention to play US college ball or were serious ball players, this is where you wanted to play.
A good ball player adjusts to the diamond size without any problems. It is not about muscle memory but about arm strength and over all strength.
I agree with fan. Many ball players develop later in their careers and often are not given a chance. The different level of travel teams we had allowed the not so elite player to develop and the elite coaches scouted the other travel and HS teams looking for these players who were starting to break out.
quote:...whose mandate was to get their players ready for college and higher.
Starting at what age?
Some elite teams had 15U ,16U,17U and 19U. Some just had 16U and 19U teams but the kids usually started at 14-15.
Some of the top organizations at 19U beat college teams .
Some of the top organizations at 19U beat college teams .
quote:Ask yourself this: How important was it that Tiger Woods learned golf and muscle memory between the ages of 2 and 12? How important is it that Martina Navratolova is teaching tennis to Russian 5 year olds. Those 5 year old females from Russia that begin at 5 (including Maria Sharapova) are now adults and dominating the tennis circuit.
MLB.com had an article saying they believed travel ball at a younger ages is what is leading to all the talent they are seeing now.
There is value in playing for quality coaches at a young age. I think you would agree that as its true in almost every sport. Not sure why people think baseball is exempt from early development and muscle memory.
Very good Comment. And case closed.
quote:the selection to all-stars at the end of the regular season allows friends to play together and be more competetive and have better coaching.
Yes does allow friends to play together that might not have during the season.
But the statement of better coaching, is not viable.
quote:Originally posted by GapFinder:quote:Ask yourself this: How important was it that Tiger Woods learned golf and muscle memory between the ages of 2 and 12? How important is it that Martina Navratolova is teaching tennis to Russian 5 year olds. Those 5 year old females from Russia that begin at 5 (including Maria Sharapova) are now adults and dominating the tennis circuit.
MLB.com had an article saying they believed travel ball at a younger ages is what is leading to all the talent they are seeing now.
Very well said.
Not pointing fingers hered, but in the past, this question was generally brought up by those whose kids aren't good enough to play at the highest level, been booted off of a "travel" team, and/or who couldn't afford the travel experience. They throw out this question in hopes that enough poster will respond back with what they want to hear. Again, I'm not accusing Daque of this, but it's usually the case.
There is value in playing for quality coaches at a young age. I think you would agree that as its true in almost every sport. Not sure why people think baseball is exempt from early development and muscle memory.
Very good Comment. And case closed.
Catcherz_Dad: Why this particular string has gotten so personalized is beyond me. I am 72 and was coaching travel before there was such a thing. I have also coached LL including a few times taking the tournament team. Here in Mexico I have coached league and tournament teams and conducted clinics. I have no negative feeings regarding any form of baseball.
My point was and remains that it is not necessary to play travel on the small diamond in order to progress up the ladder. Coaches work with kids to develop and refine skills. Rec takes all comers whereas travel seeks out the kids with more innate ability to form their teams whether or not they realize it.
Ultimately it is the kids with the greater innate ability whose skills can be refined enough to go on in the game. Skills can be learned and refined reasonably easily with strong innate abililty. Other posters can list players at the college and professional level who have changed to a new position with little difficulty.
The first major hurdle in the game is being able to successfully play on the full sized diamond. 75% of the kids fall by the wayside in this endeavor. If a player shows promise on the full sized diamond it is to the betterment of his development to play with and agaisnt the best players he can. This generally means playing travel ball. Perhaps pitching or batting coaches will be beneficial. Probably show case teams as well.
So, as most of you can see, I am not against travel ball. Nor am I against it on the small diamond. I merely state that it is not necessary for player develoment any more than it is playing t ball travel ball.
If kids want more competition, more games,and like to travel and if the parents like it and can afford it, then go for it. It is likely that their skills will be developed at an earlier age than they will in rec. But the rec. kids with the innate ability will have closed any skill gap after the first year of full sized diamond play and that is generally before HS tryouts by a year.
Being a great player on the small diamond does not equate to being even an everage player on the full sized diamond.
I began coaching youth ball 56 years ago and am merely trying to share my practical experiences with those having an interest. For those of you who believe your travel experience is/was of long term learning value then it is/was. Enjoy the game for long as it allows you to play and never look back.
My point was and remains that it is not necessary to play travel on the small diamond in order to progress up the ladder. Coaches work with kids to develop and refine skills. Rec takes all comers whereas travel seeks out the kids with more innate ability to form their teams whether or not they realize it.
Ultimately it is the kids with the greater innate ability whose skills can be refined enough to go on in the game. Skills can be learned and refined reasonably easily with strong innate abililty. Other posters can list players at the college and professional level who have changed to a new position with little difficulty.
The first major hurdle in the game is being able to successfully play on the full sized diamond. 75% of the kids fall by the wayside in this endeavor. If a player shows promise on the full sized diamond it is to the betterment of his development to play with and agaisnt the best players he can. This generally means playing travel ball. Perhaps pitching or batting coaches will be beneficial. Probably show case teams as well.
So, as most of you can see, I am not against travel ball. Nor am I against it on the small diamond. I merely state that it is not necessary for player develoment any more than it is playing t ball travel ball.
If kids want more competition, more games,and like to travel and if the parents like it and can afford it, then go for it. It is likely that their skills will be developed at an earlier age than they will in rec. But the rec. kids with the innate ability will have closed any skill gap after the first year of full sized diamond play and that is generally before HS tryouts by a year.
Being a great player on the small diamond does not equate to being even an everage player on the full sized diamond.
I began coaching youth ball 56 years ago and am merely trying to share my practical experiences with those having an interest. For those of you who believe your travel experience is/was of long term learning value then it is/was. Enjoy the game for long as it allows you to play and never look back.
Nice summary Daque:
Younger kids IMO should continue to play multiple sports and develop their overall athletic ability. Good coaching is more important in the 12-14U age range. You can get that in travel and in Rec, but the most likely way is through individual lessons.
Like I posted earlier one of the best 14U pitcher's I have ever seen is now a below average HS pitcher. He just did not develop physically after puberty. The athletes will emerge in HS. Look at Matt Kemp from the Dodgers, scouts have been saying he would be great and he played very little HS baseball. He was a basketball player.
Younger kids IMO should continue to play multiple sports and develop their overall athletic ability. Good coaching is more important in the 12-14U age range. You can get that in travel and in Rec, but the most likely way is through individual lessons.
Like I posted earlier one of the best 14U pitcher's I have ever seen is now a below average HS pitcher. He just did not develop physically after puberty. The athletes will emerge in HS. Look at Matt Kemp from the Dodgers, scouts have been saying he would be great and he played very little HS baseball. He was a basketball player.
I really don't see the little diamond/big diamond issue. Non of the players on my son's bantam team had any problem going to the bigger diamond.
It is only a matter of strength. If you can play on the small diamond you should have no issues making the throws etc.
It is only a matter of strength. If you can play on the small diamond you should have no issues making the throws etc.
quote:Originally posted by Daque:
Catcherz_Dad: Why this particular string has gotten so personalized is beyond me. I am 72 and was coaching travel before there was such a thing. I have also coached LL including a few times taking the tournament team. Here in Mexico I have coached league and tournament teams and conducted clinics. I have no negative feeings regarding any form of baseball.
My point was and remains that it is not necessary to play travel on the small diamond in order to progress up the ladder. Coaches work with kids to develop and refine skills. Rec takes all comers whereas travel seeks out the kids with more innate ability to form their teams whether or not they realize it.
Ultimately it is the kids with the greater innate ability whose skills can be refined enough to go on in the game. Skills can be learned and refined reasonably easily with strong innate abililty. Other posters can list players at the college and professional level who have changed to a new position with little difficulty.
The first major hurdle in the game is being able to successfully play on the full sized diamond. 75% of the kids fall by the wayside in this endeavor. If a player shows promise on the full sized diamond it is to the betterment of his development to play with and agaisnt the best players he can. This generally means playing travel ball. Perhaps pitching or batting coaches will be beneficial. Probably show case teams as well.
So, as most of you can see, I am not against travel ball. Nor am I against it on the small diamond. I merely state that it is not necessary for player develoment any more than it is playing t ball travel ball.
If kids want more competition, more games,and like to travel and if the parents like it and can afford it, then go for it. It is likely that their skills will be developed at an earlier age than they will in rec. But the rec. kids with the innate ability will have closed any skill gap after the first year of full sized diamond play and that is generally before HS tryouts by a year.
Being a great player on the small diamond does not equate to being even an everage player on the full sized diamond.
I began coaching youth ball 56 years ago and am merely trying to share my practical experiences with those having an interest. For those of you who believe your travel experience is/was of long term learning value then it is/was. Enjoy the game for long as it allows you to play and never look back.
Daque. Again, I'm not making the assumption that you fall in to that category. This same question has come across this and other boards more times than I can count, and in more than a few, it comes down to the few things that I listed.
Nothing personal from me. I'd be happy to edit my post if you were at all offended.
Catcherz_Dad: I am not offended by anything you or the others have said. I was mystified for a while but I have come to believe that there are those who have a lot invested in their position, financially and emotionally. It will be very difficult to impossible for them to consider any opinion conflicting with their own. I just did not want to lead astray anyone not so invested by my ambiguity and, therefore, summarized as you read. Anything I say from here forward would be repitious and without additional merit. Evaluate the content as you will. My experiences lead to different conclusions than the opposition.
Daque
I know you don't always drink beer but when you do is it XX?
quedate con sed mi amigo!
I know you don't always drink beer but when you do is it XX?
quedate con sed mi amigo!
I like dark beer and so it is Indio. Maybe we will tip one some day, amigo.
There is an easy answer to this debate and you just have to look at the stories of how many MLB players got to the majors. Many of them DIDN'T have ANY worthwhile baseball experiences until high school.
Baseball is unlike golf or piano. Like someone said, a piano never changes size and golf balls don't ever move. Look at football if you want a fair comparison. Baseball and football are far less forgiving sports, if you don't have size and muscle and athletic talent no amount of pre HS travel ball experience will help you. Pitchers get hit hardest with the reality stick. Muscle memory will do NOTHING for you if you can't throw 90 mph.
Another reality check is to go ask MLB scouts. Why do you think they carry radar guns and ignore much else? Because they plan on drafting the high velocity kids and TEACH what the kids need to learn and actually UNTEACH the stuff they already learned in travel ball, etc. For position players, you need to hit the **** out of the ball, all their travel experience on patiently taking pitches, fielding, running, the scouts generally DON'T CARE.
I was told this myself from a coworker whose brother was drafted and confirmed with other stories I have read. And people hate hearing this but I am glad I have come to terms with this, makes it easier to enjoy my kids games.
So I agree with Daque's OP. Pre-HS experience AND talent do not correlate to HS+ success, it will help the chosen few only so have fun with your kids.
Baseball is unlike golf or piano. Like someone said, a piano never changes size and golf balls don't ever move. Look at football if you want a fair comparison. Baseball and football are far less forgiving sports, if you don't have size and muscle and athletic talent no amount of pre HS travel ball experience will help you. Pitchers get hit hardest with the reality stick. Muscle memory will do NOTHING for you if you can't throw 90 mph.
Another reality check is to go ask MLB scouts. Why do you think they carry radar guns and ignore much else? Because they plan on drafting the high velocity kids and TEACH what the kids need to learn and actually UNTEACH the stuff they already learned in travel ball, etc. For position players, you need to hit the **** out of the ball, all their travel experience on patiently taking pitches, fielding, running, the scouts generally DON'T CARE.
I was told this myself from a coworker whose brother was drafted and confirmed with other stories I have read. And people hate hearing this but I am glad I have come to terms with this, makes it easier to enjoy my kids games.
So I agree with Daque's OP. Pre-HS experience AND talent do not correlate to HS+ success, it will help the chosen few only so have fun with your kids.
.
Daque...
Regardless of my stand on your premise..I have really enjoyed reading your posts and I very much look forward to your continued contributions in all areas of the HSBBW. You have a great deal to contribute.
44
.
Daque...
Regardless of my stand on your premise..I have really enjoyed reading your posts and I very much look forward to your continued contributions in all areas of the HSBBW. You have a great deal to contribute.
44.
quote:I am disagreeing that many boys dont show innate abilites to the level your talking about until later on in their development.
First let me say that I am not irritated or hurt by any comments made in this discussion by anyone. If people disagree with me that is fine so long as I have made my point clear. I believe I have and time will prove who was correct in the analysis.
As to the quote above, that is correct. It is once again a metter of degree. You look at a kid and see some sparks and you wonder if and when they will ignite to a fire. In my mind, you will get a pretty good idea by 16.
But then there is the kid who has been skill drilled to death with travel, batting coaches and pitching coaches. He is just so smooth but the throw loops and the whole process is not natural looking. I have seen HS coaches get fooled with these kids who have maxed out or nearly so. The coach keeps predicting that the kid will come out of his perpetual slump any time now. But he never does and the spark that was seen never becomes anything else.
Not all coaches can regognize the level of innate ability they are looking at. Many look but few see. Those with the innate ability are just waiting until their strength comes along. The throws, the swings, and the foot speed all take a big jump. Sadly, for the majority the spark fizzles and dies. They have reached their peak and nothing can change that. A professional basketball player was asked by a hopeful Junior High player what it was that a player wanting to play pro should do, that most important thing. He thought a couple of seconds and with a twinkle in his eyes, "Pick your parents very carefully." What he said was half in jest but correct none the less.
I will not debate the issue further since my several posts made my positions quite clear. On the few occasions that I am in Guadalajara and have the time to stop in at a LL Majors game or two, I am invariably approached by a father or a grandfather dragging a kid behind for me to look at. Normally, I tell him that he plays well for his age, tell him to continue working hard, and wish him well. Part of the art of saying nothing but saying it well.
These kids are everywhere. Maturing physically rapidly and out muscling their peers. But the kids I really want to see are not the standouts for the moment but the lanky kids who have presence when they take the field. Presence is like pornography, difficult to describe but you know it when you see it if you were blessed with the eye. Lanky with a lively arm, cat quick, and pretty good speed. Those are the kids to watch down the road ---- when they are 16. Check then is the fire has been lit.
I don't know if "travel/select" ball or whatever you want to call it is necessary or not-all I have is my son's experience which says "no." We live in the Houston area-known for top notch baseball. My son is now a rising junior at a D1 program. He played little league until he was 13. Yes, he was an all-star every year and sometimes the competition was not fantastic but he had a great time and it didn't hurt him in the least. He played some local tournament ball during the fall his last several years but even then it wasn't with one of the "top" programs-just his local friends who wanted to play. He made varsity as a freshman in high school-did well in high school-but his summer and fall were still spent with his local friends. The all important summer between junior/senior year is the only time he played for one of the major travel teams in our area. He learned what he needed to-had the talent and desire to play-and that's what mattered in the end-not the fact that he spent most of the pre-hs years on the local LL team. Like I said, he's now playing college ball and I can honestly say we wouldn't change a thing about how he got to this point.
The problem with this post is that the lines of debate are kind of fuzzy. On one hand I think we can all agree that playing travel ball is not necessarily required by the baseball student to make it to high school if they have natural talent. But, on the other hand I think we can also all agree that kids who play travel ball over rec ball are more skilled in the art of baseball entering HS.
Those two points can't really be debated, it is just plain common sense! The fuzziness here is that we debate "projectibility" to the freikin enth, and it always gets brought up about how little Johnny sucked and didn't project well coming into HS but then turned into a major HS and college stud while the young 14 year old stud projected well and then turned into a nobody.
This debate isn't about "projection" or about how this or that person turned out by playing or not playing this league or that. It's all getting fuzzy. The debate is supposed to be about if playing travel ball = future success.
But, in that statement alone it is kind of loaded to say the least- it is just too ambiguos also because it trys to take into account every persons situation which just can't be done!
It is true, and I think everyone is in agreement that if you "suck" no amount of rec ball or travel ball will turn you into a stud! No amount of money or coaching will corect bad genetics or poor athleticism. You may improve them to some degree but in reality you are just turning a bad player into a mediocre player for the moment and they will still end up being just another average ball player who only dreams about truly playing good.
But, and here is the big BUT, in general we are not talking about mediocre average ball players that only dream of being good. we are talking about if "good natural talent" benefits by playing travel ball before HS years. This is why this post is so intriguing to me I guess because it seems to me like just basic common sense that good players should be challenged harder because they can actually play at a higher more challenging level.
The argument that travel ball for these good kids is unbeneficial before HS is totally whacked!
Why don't we just say that "no ball" at all is beneficial before HS because, like a switch being flicked on instantly that talent will bloom just like the flick of the fingers as soon as they put cleats on for the first time and take to the big diamond!
It's a baseless and illogical argument. Travel ball will always benefit the better players over rec ball and better prepare them for HS any day of the week in any town in America- flat out, but hey, that is whats fuzzy and not really what we are debating anyway!!
Those two points can't really be debated, it is just plain common sense! The fuzziness here is that we debate "projectibility" to the freikin enth, and it always gets brought up about how little Johnny sucked and didn't project well coming into HS but then turned into a major HS and college stud while the young 14 year old stud projected well and then turned into a nobody.
This debate isn't about "projection" or about how this or that person turned out by playing or not playing this league or that. It's all getting fuzzy. The debate is supposed to be about if playing travel ball = future success.
But, in that statement alone it is kind of loaded to say the least- it is just too ambiguos also because it trys to take into account every persons situation which just can't be done!
It is true, and I think everyone is in agreement that if you "suck" no amount of rec ball or travel ball will turn you into a stud! No amount of money or coaching will corect bad genetics or poor athleticism. You may improve them to some degree but in reality you are just turning a bad player into a mediocre player for the moment and they will still end up being just another average ball player who only dreams about truly playing good.
But, and here is the big BUT, in general we are not talking about mediocre average ball players that only dream of being good. we are talking about if "good natural talent" benefits by playing travel ball before HS years. This is why this post is so intriguing to me I guess because it seems to me like just basic common sense that good players should be challenged harder because they can actually play at a higher more challenging level.
The argument that travel ball for these good kids is unbeneficial before HS is totally whacked!
Why don't we just say that "no ball" at all is beneficial before HS because, like a switch being flicked on instantly that talent will bloom just like the flick of the fingers as soon as they put cleats on for the first time and take to the big diamond!
It's a baseless and illogical argument. Travel ball will always benefit the better players over rec ball and better prepare them for HS any day of the week in any town in America- flat out, but hey, that is whats fuzzy and not really what we are debating anyway!!