| Author |
 Topic  |
|
jongamefan
218 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2010 : 22:43:27
|
interesting thoughts DD but unless you have lived it with your own son you can not possibley have a accurate perspective on the situation or the 'investment . Have You ?
thats the competition level offered the winning baseball learned the pride in playing on a true elite team which thousands of kids per year would give their little fingers for and carry with them forever.
its not about 'scouts' that Ive heard of either so dont judge a book by its cover Sir .
quote:
Originally posted by DoubleD
12 at 12 years old, 13 at 13 years old, 14 at 14 years old, etc.
I hear stories of 16-20 kids being projected on some 14U teams. WHY?
What does a kid learn by sitting on the bench?
The team may be (on paper) one of the top teams in the country but only 9 are are in the field at the same time. Kids learn and get better at the game by practicing and then applying what they learned in practice with pressure added into the situation. Some kids practice great but can't make the plays in pressure situations.
Pitcher only at 14U is not a good idea if you want a kid to develop.
Who knows what he might end up being if only given the reps. Unless your kid is Jason Heyward, the scouts are not looking at 14 year old kids because are still growing and learning the game!
Parents pay alot of money to be on an 'elite' team and drive great distances as well. If a kids sits on the bench and never gets the needed reps in order to develop it's not much of a return on investment in my humble opinion.
|
 |
|
|
DoubleD
33 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2010 : 10:16:54
|
I'm not sure if I have 'lived it' with my son if you're implying the teams he's been on were not of elite stature. They most certainly have been among the top 4-5 teams in the state within the majors division and could compete and beat any team on any given day, including the 'elite' team(s).
No, we have not yet experienced a large roster scenario in which many of the players receive only spot play at best. I'm very aware that at the older, high school age groups, large rosters include PO's and specialized role players. I'm just saying at 13U, 14U and probably 15U the kids are still growing and learning how to play on the bigger fields. How are the going to learn & progress just by practicing? I guess it could be argued they too have a role, to help fund the team, be available if needed, and support their teammates, etc...If parents want their kid to be on an 'elite' team just for the stature and are not bothered by the lack of playing time then that's certainly their choice. If the kid is ok with this type of situation then who am I to pass judgement? I have a hard time understanding it but I can respect the fact it's their kid and if he's ok with it, so be it.
As for my kid, he loves to compete and will work his tail off to stay
in the game. Practicing is not enough for him. If given the option of playing on an high stature, 'elite team' but receive less playing time or a slightly lesser stature, non-elite team and play every day he would opt for playing time over bench time every time as long as he has the chance to compete against the 'elite team(s)'. That's just him and I'm obviously of the same mindset.
As I stated before 'in my humble opinion'.
|
|
|
|
Alter-Ego
802 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2010 : 14:17:46
|
Jong,
I have lived it so I feel i can speak to this subject. Kids have to play. Sitting on the bench does not teach kids how to win. They can learn how to keep competing by watching those do it but can get the same view from the stands. There is no such thing as osmosis in baseball. Being around it does not teach you how to be successful against it. Only being in there will do that.
Conversely, playing all the time, against weaker competition, never teaches you how to compete at a higher level. Being on a team which consistently gives up when they get down never teaches you how to work through things and come back and win.
Finding the right balance between playing time, development, and competition is the key.
Being on an Elite team, without contributing to make it Elite, is not beneficial for your development.
|
|
|
|
jongamefan
218 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2010 : 20:22:16
|
i can agree with all that but in doing so I also can not imagine a player being on a true Elite team who did not contribute to its success otherwise why is - was he there ?? .
never have seen that happen .
sure contribute maybe less than other players but contributing is a team mentality you contribute when and where can.
that goes for life too 
quote:
Originally posted by Alter-Ego
Jong,
I have lived it so I feel i can speak to this subject. Kids have to play. Sitting on the bench does not teach kids how to win. They can learn how to keep competing by watching those do it but can get the same view from the stands. There is no such thing as osmosis in baseball. Being around it does not teach you how to be successful against it. Only being in there will do that.
Conversely, playing all the time, against weaker competition, never teaches you how to compete at a higher level. Being on a team which consistently gives up when they get down never teaches you how to work through things and come back and win.
Finding the right balance between playing time, development, and competition is the key.
Being on an Elite team, without contributing to make it Elite, is not beneficial for your development.
|
|
|
|
Alter-Ego
802 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2010 : 17:41:34
|
Jong,
Every kid could find a way to contribute. The question is whether the opportunities for their contribution is enough to give them the continued development they need.
I have always told people that there is a lifecycle in baseball.
Kids that are the top one or two on their team should not stay at that level for too many seasons. They need to move up (more competitive team or up an age group) to continue to be challenged.
Kids that are the bottom 20% of the team(not necessarily in talent, but in playing time.) should not stay at that level for too many seasons either. They need to move to a level (down a level or parallel to a team that has space availability for more play time) so they can get the reps and development they need. This can occur if a player gets stuck behind another player for the same position. This happens in HS too, but there are more options in travel ball to do something about it.
The ideal situation is to be in the top 25% of the team in playing time so there is enough development opportunities.
I am not saying to never be happy where you are, or that you should team hop every year. The important thing is to be in a place where you can develop. The hard thing is to truly assess where a kid is, not just in talent but also in the hierarchy of a team and that age group. As parents it is tough to see where they are, as opposed to where they could be if all way perfect. The key is to help them find the path that will help them get to where they want to be.
There is a lot of talent around here and very few weekends, during the season, can you not find good talent to play against. By the way teams around here compete nationally, not playing out of town every weekend does not hinder you from seeing national caliber talent. Traveling out of town to tournaments should be for diversity in competition, not believing there is better talent somewhere else. I argue that is not the case. |
|
|
|
PASSBALL
28 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2010 : 23:48:14
|
| I'm a dad who's son is on the 14 EC ASTROS. And what I have learned is that parents really don't want their the kids to compete. We all think that our kids are one of the tops in their age group. At what age do we really want them to compete. Now I understand that there should be a limit. I have been on teams with 10,11,12 15,now 16. We all look at it from a money stand point, most figure if I'm paying little johnny needs to be playing. What if you paid and little johnny didn't earn anything on the field! More kids breeds more competition and drive to get more playing time! But the flip side to that is most of your 11,12yr olds are coached by 3 or 4 dads so 11 might be a good number or put a team together and just pay a coach who doesn't have a kid on the team. That has worked for me the last 3years. |
|
|
|
RACGOFAR
208 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2010 : 15:46:24
|
Ask the high school coaches and they will tell you that parents want them to play the best 9 players on the team . . . and their son!
11 players for 12u or lower seems to be the right number. 13+ you start to see players as pitchers only and then the rosters should expand. Elite teams usually have a larger roster so they can pull players in when theri are conflicts with player's local teams.
But players on any age travel team should be competing for playing time no matter how many players are on the roster. That is not to say that the 11th or 12th players should ride the bench all the time.
But if all your players ever do is what you tell them and teach them as a coach, then all they will ever be is an average player. The above average players on all our teams understand this and compete all the time, aginst their opponents, their temamates and against thmeselves and their most recent performance.
So for me the answer to the question is you need enough players to play the game (9) and enough extra players as the situation dictates to be able to 1) compete as a team; and2) make teammates compete against themselves and each other.
The overall level of the team doesn't really matter, Rec, AA, AA Major, Elite. This principle works for them all. |
|
|
|
Alter-Ego
802 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2010 : 11:41:41
|
People always talk about competing for playing time, but unlike competing on the field, a player does not have control of all the components when the decision is made who is to be in the lineup. Especially when you have 16 or more players.
I agree that players need to be in a situation where they can't just "phone it in" and still be on the field, but there is also the opposite end where there are too many players for the same positions and more playing time is just not in the players control.
If the focus is more on competing with the players in your own dugout, than the omes in the other dugout, team chemistry is hard to build.
I still believe that players need to be on the best team they can be on and still get the amount of playing time needed for them to develop.
I agree with RACGOFAR that the level does not matter. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What is the best Number of players for travel
