Which youth sport has the worst parents?

[greybeard]

I respectively disagree, as much as I disagree with your assertion that hitting a baseball in little league is easy. CAN it be easy? Sure if you have a kid throwing 35 MPH but try going up against a kid throwing 71 from 46 ft away and tell me how easy that is. Now certainly not everyone throws 71 but you get my point. Couple that with curves that these kids throw and it becomes a monumental task for ANY little leaguer. The game of baseball is very, very difficult. Many of the top kids go to academy's to be taught the finer points in hitting and it shows more times than not. I do agree that you can "learn" certain aspects of it on your own. You can learn how to stand in the box, how to grip the bat. What is harder to learn are things like letting the outside pitch travel a little deeper to drive it oppo or how where the knob of the bat should be pointing when you're in the load position, how to get to the "power V", stuff like that. I could go on about things you can't expect a 12 yr old to learn by themselves. Now, sure, much of this is somewhat advanced for a little leaguer but if they're taught this stuff at an early age, the transition to the big field and faster pitching will be easier since they'll be getting to the hitting zone quicker and staying there longer. Again, this info really doesn't help a whole lot of the pitching isn't very good. Are there some kids who will dominate without any help? Absolutely! Hand eye coordination plays a big part. In the end, you can learn and be taught all these wonderful things but you'll only go as far as your God given ability will take you.

Btw, thanks for the stories of your teams you've coached.

A couple of things. I had no idea that little leaguers could throw anywhere in the universe of 71 mph, and I understand what you say about being able to provide meta information and models to kids who have already fallen upon a developed skill set, including a skill set for learning, mking good use of the type of instruction you describe.

On the other hand, nobody taught Yogi, Mickey, Mays, Aaron, etc. how to hit a ball, and nobody taught any of the extraordinarily accomplished baseball players that I saw emerge in my little Long Island town how to hit it. Some could crush it, I mean crush it, from the time they were 10, and were crushing it through a Div 1 career. Others were spray hitters, singles and doubles. These guys figured it out. Believe me, Mr. Duggin, the high school coach, had nothing to offer them in terms of hitting.

On the other hand, if you develop Regional Tournament play, that builds into Little League post season Championship play and want to bring a number of kids who show a lesser facility but still are really "good" players to the "next level," then all these high-end clinics, camps, leagues with batting cage/pitching machine, hours and hours of practice and game time, sure that can "elevate" the games of those guys such that you can compete against other like minded communities. The reality now is that there is no real choice. Every community has such programs and the draw to be part of them takes away from the community which these kids once helped to comprise.

I really see no value in this but rather a fair amount of negative. In our area in DC, there were a number of guys who really enjoyed one another and were interested and talented enough to form a travel team. They thought themselves a tad special but most kids by then had things, affinities, that they too felt special about and shared with their friends.

Travel soccer, however, was different than say the guys who were runners, or who later crewed, or played an instrument. See. In travel soccer there were divisions, you know how that works. So, there were five or so of these kids who were on the higher end of the spectrum of the neighborhood travel team who themselves began "traveling," at first as a group, then as individuals, "up" the ladder, drawn by "better coaches" who attracted and selected only the very best players, and the better coaches and higher divisioned teams, until travel itself was not cache enough and then it was Regional play, traveling 30-45 minutes each way to practice, weekend trips to all sorts of out-of-the-way hamlets for tournaments.

These guys got together with their friends to play high school soccer and helped comprise a top-ten in the area soccer team. If there was a tournament for a club team coming up and a practice was being held that conflicted with a high school game, I don't have to tell you the choice.

These guys all remained friends, a testiment to all of them, but somewhere the ties loosened and for what?

Does it really matter if you can sit into the power position, drop your hands and arms into the power position, learn how to hit an inside fastball to the opposite field, even think about hitting a ball thrown from 45 feet at 71 mph. I can see its being an elixir, and who can fault kids and their parents being drawn to it.

To me, this high-end competition at young ages in every sport and the mini, or maybe no so mini industries that now build them, are unfortunate. I do not see them adding anything to anyone's life, in the sense that no one would miss them if they were not there--the sports would still be there to be enjoyed and the "creme", or those who aspire to it, would rise to the top when kids had grown out of the peach fuzz and reached their early teens. The "top" of course would not involve all this championship club stuff and beyond, that in the end serves very, very, very few in terms of advancing in any meaningful way to any such thing as the next level. It just makes the "Glory Days" devoid of context. In fact, I doubt that if Bruce was looking back to the world of sport today as metaphor, the song never gets written. What would there be to write about?

[allenmurray]

Every community has such programs and the draw to be part of them takes away from the community which these kids once helped to comprise.

I really see no value in this but rather a fair amount of negative. In our area in DC, there were a number of guys who really enjoyed one another and were interested and talented enough to form a travel team. They thought themselves a tad special but most kids by then had things, affinities, that they too felt special about and shared with their friends.

To me, this high-end competition at young ages in every sport and the mini, or maybe no so mini industries that now build them, are unfortunate. I do not see them adding anything to anyone's life, in the sense that no one would miss them if they were not there--the sports would still be there to be enjoyed and the "creme", or those who aspire to it, would rise to the top when kids had grown out of the peach fuzz and reached their early teens.

There is often incredible tension between Little League and travel ball. In some communities they co-exist pretty well, in others travel ball really hurts the Little League or community leagues because once the most talented kids leave for travel ball so do many of the most involved parents (that doesn't just impact coaching but also fund-raising, organization, volunteers, concessions, etc.) I saw that tension almost destroy the LL I was involved in, but then saw the tension nicely dealt with by a LL president who had a very talented son who also played travel ball. Once the LL and travel ball folks stopped fighting each other and started working together it benefitted all. One example - we began scheduling games on every other weekend, instead of every Saturday. That left 50% of the weekends for travel ball kids to participate in tournaments and gave the less involved baseball families some weekends that they didn't have to spend at the ballpark. Some travel ball kids chose not to pitch in LL in order to save their arms for travel ball - leaving opprtunities for the less talented kids to throw some innings. Some non travel ball kids became "fill-in" players in travel teams - playing the occasional tournament when a travel ball regular had another obligation, thus giving a "travel ball" experience to a kid/family who didn't want to make the full committment. They can co-exist and actually strengthen each other, but it takes a lot of work and creativity.

[greybeard]

There is often incredible tension between Little League and travel ball. In some communities they co-exist pretty well, in others travel ball really hurts the Little League or community leagues because once the most talented kids leave for travel ball so do many of the most involved parents (that doesn't just impact coaching but also fund-raising, organization, volunteers, concessions, etc.) I saw that tension almost destroy the LL I was involved in, but then saw the tension nicely dealt with by a LL president who had a very talented son who also played travel ball. Once the LL and travel ball folks stopped fighting each other and started working together it benefitted all. One example - we began scheduling games on every other weekend, instead of every Saturday. That left 50% of the weekends for travel ball kids to participate in tournaments and gave the less involved baseball families some weekends that they didn't have to spend at the ballpark. Some travel ball kids chose not to pitch in LL in order to save their arms for travel ball - leaving opprtunities for the less talented kids to throw some innings. Some non travel ball kids became "fill-in" players in travel teams - playing the occasional tournament when a travel ball regular had another obligation, thus giving a "travel ball" experience to a kid/family who didn't want to make the full committment. They can co-exist and actually strengthen each other, but it takes a lot of work and creativity.

Sounds great. I understand the little league/elite little-league World Series little league folks caused a scism some 15 years ago that exists until this day--two little leagues, one controlled by the elite ambition folks. You and I have always seen the side of the kids who unnnecessarily get shunted aside, and not just those who are talented, the world of "play" and the world of serious "competition," and have tried in our own ways to see how to reconcile both. Well, you have always been much better at the reconciling; I've always been more the advocate for saving the elite teams and training and practices and adult-structured and lead competitions for old aged kids, to let kids just play for fun and have fun learning through play, with just a little help from an older friend.

Nice hearing from you on this; stories, stories are great facilitators of learning. They illuminate the possible, create aura, feel, things that arguments lack. To my friend the story teller, hi.

[ramdevil]

Thanks for this very interesting thread. It's probably impossible to return to the way sports used to be played - but interesting that most of us see the need.

I thought I'd add my experience with basketball. Both of my boys played, and one league (for you Richmonders, I'm talking about Bon Air Basketball) had a very strong and enforced policy regarding parents during games. For the most part, those games and the parents at those games were OK. My son was never on a winning team (in fact they lost almost every game). The league coordinator continuously adjusted the schedule so that the teams with the best records played each other and the teams with the worst records played each other. It worked pretty well. Now the league has gotten so popular that they play games in school/church gyms everywhere. The league encourages 'neighborhood' teams, too, so friends can join up and make a team. The most skilled players/teams are often local AAU teams - but that is OK, because they play each other.

However, there was another league that was run differently - it was miserable. The kids behaved badly on court (once a player through a ball at the ref's head). Parents were AWFUL. They yelled at refs, coaches, and opposing players. Ugh. My son typically played about 1 minute each game. We lasted through one season of that.

We had our kids on swim teams from age 5 on, and that is a much better experience overall. Swimmers hear nothing while swimming - so parents yelling is pretty useless. Plus swim meets require most of the parents to actively participate. It is hard to complain/berate/coach if you are timing or handing out water or something else. Volunteering also gives the parents a better sense of how much work is required to make the meets run. And most coaches are paid, not volunteers. Of course, there are certainly parents who are over-involved - coming to practices, etc.

Finally, I'll give a plug to YMCA sports leagues. YMCA swimming (some Y's have highly competitive teams, some are more rec-league) has been wonderful. Their t-ball and soccer programs for really young children are also great.

ramdevil

[Billy Dat]

Sounds great. I understand the little league/elite little-league World Series little league folks caused a scism some 15 years ago that exists until this day--two little leagues, one controlled by the elite ambition folks. You and I have always seen the side of the kids who unnnecessarily get shunted aside, and not just those who are talented, the world of "play" and the world of serious "competition," and have tried in our own ways to see how to reconcile both. Well, you have always been much better at the reconciling; I've always been more the advocate for saving the elite teams and training and practices and adult-structured and lead competitions for old aged kids, to let kids just play for fun and have fun learning through play, with just a little help from an older friend.

Nice hearing from you on this; stories, stories are great facilitators of learning. They illuminate the possible, create aura, feel, things that arguments lack. To my friend the story teller, hi.

I appreciate the dialogue on this topic as I am dealing with it now with youth soccer. I think both greybeard and allen make excellent points.

Grey - you have really articulated the argument against sub-adolescent sports specialization and all its trappings (travel teams, private trainers, etc.) very well. My 2nd grader plays on a club travel soccer team and in the local town-only AYSO league. The attraction of AYSO is just what you describe, he is playing with kids he knows and building that sense of community with the other kids who lover soccer in the town. The drawback are the vast number of kids who simply don't want to be there and whose parents are forcing them to "play a sport". My son currently prefers the travel team because its a bunch of kids who really try hard and want to be there - and, as a result, the games and practices are more interesting. Right now, the travel team is largely comprised of kids from the town - but I can see the future you draw, that group getting smaller and smaller year by year as kids splinter off to more serious elite club teams and programs, or get burned out, etc. As you say, "For what?"

My town has the same problem that Allen described, the local AYSO and the local town club travel program (former age minimum 4th grade), which are different than the travel club my son plays for, have joined forces to try and combat the flight to competing club programs by offering travel at a younger age. But, instead of starting from scratch and trying to craft a attractive solution, as your town baseball program seems to have done, they have created a hybrid that works for no one, forcing kids to play both AYSO and travel meaning they are on 2 separate teams with different players, coaches, etc. So, let's combat the allure of club travel and try to preserve the local rec league by making the kids play more games with less practice and the whole commitment takes more time than the local club program. Sounds like AAU basketball. It's a disaster. But, it circles back to the original topic - the kids don't make these decisions, the parents do, and the parents who run the leagues are as territorial and inflexible as you might expect. What a morass.

[killerleft]

When I grow up, I want to play center field for the Yankees!

Me, too! I wonder how many games I could throw before they figured out that Carl Yastrzemski will always be my hero?

[greybeard]

I appreciate the dialogue on this topic as I am dealing with it now with youth soccer. I think both greybeard and allen make excellent points.

Grey - you have really articulated the argument against sub-adolescent sports specialization and all its trappings (travel teams, private trainers, etc.) very well. My 2nd grader plays on a club travel soccer team and in the local town-only AYSO league. The attraction of AYSO is just what you describe, he is playing with kids he knows and building that sense of community with the other kids who lover soccer in the town. The drawback are the vast number of kids who simply don't want to be there and whose parents are forcing them to "play a sport". My son currently prefers the travel team because its a bunch of kids who really try hard and want to be there - and, as a result, the games and practices are more interesting. Right now, the travel team is largely comprised of kids from the town - but I can see the future you draw, that group getting smaller and smaller year by year as kids splinter off to more serious elite club teams and programs, or get burned out, etc. As you say, "For what?"

My town has the same problem that Allen described, the local AYSO and the local town club travel program (former age minimum 4th grade), which are different than the travel club my son plays for, have joined forces to try and combat the flight to competing club programs by offering travel at a younger age. But, instead of starting from scratch and trying to craft a attractive solution, as your town baseball program seems to have done, they have created a hybrid that works for no one, forcing kids to play both AYSO and travel meaning they are on 2 separate teams with different players, coaches, etc. So, let's combat the allure of club travel and try to preserve the local rec league by making the kids play more games with less practice and the whole commitment takes more time than the local club program. Sounds like AAU basketball. It's a disaster. But, it circles back to the original topic - the kids don't make these decisions, the parents do, and the parents who run the leagues are as territorial and inflexible as you might expect. What a morass.

It's great when this Board works. Good luck with this Billy Dat, good luck to you and your son. I envy you these years. You seem to have a good handle on things, and, if you wing it right (better than I did I hope) it can be quite gratifying and enriching.

Epilogue: What my son and some of those really talented friends found was that in their high school years, participants in rec ball had dwindled such that there were only two or maybe four teams and that they could show up on a Saturday morning and fit in and play with old friends and make some new ones. Often, depending on how many guys showed up and from which teams, the guys themselves made up teams so they were evenly balanced instead of keeping fixed teammates together unless those guys desired it. Even the guys who were terribly serious about the game seemed to enjoy very much kicking back (excuse the pun) and playing without the intensity that high school and certainly high end Regional teams demanded. The interesting thing was that those guys were happy to blend in, not take control of the games.

At that point, there really were no coaches as such. One guy whose son was then playing in college but who really enjoyed the game and making it happen for your men was always present to get things rolling right. So, in the end, as grown young men, these guys found what the realities of their soccer-mom days denied them.


I'll end with a word about my favorite issue: injury. There are style-of-play choices that can be made that will not detract from effectiveness, in fact, can enhance it, that will be much safer than others. The way the Spanish national team plays, one-two touches, very little one-on-one attempts to dazzle and beat a defender, will minimize to a significant degree the likelihood of foot, ankle, leg injuiries. These young guys are taught an amazing array of moves. You put those moves on an aggressive defender, expecially one who might play more on athletical ability than a real feel for and understanding of the game, and really bad, nasty but unintentional tackles can result. What you do, or your son does when he is really coming of age, when a coach has a style that demands taking players on rather than featuring the small passing game, is tough. What used to really disturb me were coaches who coached intimidation, especially intimidating challenges in the air around the mid field off of long kicks. The possibility of getting or metting out a concussion unnecessarily, well, another choice. Really honing skills of chesting a long ball and developing the footwork that converts a heading situation into a chesting stop is not a bad idea.

Those five guys that I mentioned in a previous post, the best of them, a compound fracture of his Tibia, another a minicus, another a bad hip joint, another, a kid with terrific vision and touch who played as a defensive mid, had two awful ankles and still does, and finally, a terrific goalie, who after one too many minor concussions spent his Junior year and part of his Senior year literally not being able to tell Tuesday from a garbage can a good deal of the time.

Enjoyed this very much, Grey

[Billy Dat]

Epilogue: What my son and some of those really talented friends found was that in their high school years, participants in rec ball had dwindled such that there were only two or maybe four teams and that they could show up on a Saturday morning and fit in and play with old friends and make some new ones. Often, depending on how many guys showed up and from which teams, the guys themselves made up teams so they were evenly balanced instead of keeping fixed teammates together unless those guys desired it. Even the guys who were terribly serious about the game seemed to enjoy very much kicking back (excuse the pun) and playing without the intensity that high school and certainly high end Regional teams demanded. The interesting thing was that those guys were happy to blend in, not take control of the games.

I also coach several of my kids' teams, either in a head coach or assistant capacity. Right now, we're talking 6 and 8 year olds so it's as much babysitting and keeping it fun as anything else. The town requires that we go through formal training and it has been an eye opening experience as many of the vetted strategies for coaching young kids, and keeping them enthusiastic about sports, are the opposite of typical parental instincts.

-greybeard mentions how, left to their own devices, kids will form balanced teams and referee their own play. If the teams are unfair, they typically re-balance. But, what do we do as adults when we form these kids leagues - the Dads with the best kids get together in order to give their team an advantage and there's always that one or two teams that form up in this manner and dominate the league.

-Nearly all coaching strategy for kids at the youngest ages should involve minimal instruction from the coach and lots of "on ball" time for the kids. Do a quick demonstration and then let them try it out over and over while you offer occasional correction. The NFL playbook can wait.

-When a game is over, a kid has typically mentally moved on to the ice cream truck waiting nearby. But, we as adults are still reliving the game - good or bad as it may have been - and are dying to talk to our kids about it. Bottom line, they really don't want to talk about it. Let it go.

-I used to shout instructions to the kids constantly. Finally, I asked them, "Do you hear what I am saying while you are playing?" Most of them said no. I now typically keep my commentary to a lot of rah-rah encouragement and leave them to figure out the game as they play it (in game situations).

I understand that I am coaching very young kids and the older they get, the more a coach has the ability to influence them, but the overall lesson seems to be that less is more. The other lesson, the research-vetted #1 reason why kids quit playing sports, "I wasn't having fun".

[JasonEvans]

Allen - moving the mound back would be a difficult thing to do because you'd also have to change the length of the basepaths as well which would then change the infield. I've seen some leagues go to a 53 ft mound. But you're right, since they changed the age cutoff to April 30th, you have much bigger, stronger kids pitching(and hitting). I've been out of LL for a few years so I'm not sure if the change to BBCOR has trickled down to that level yet. I think it might be a good idea for the safety of the kids if they haven't already. Either that or change the date back to October.

Umm, how does the age cutoff affect anything? If it is April 30th, there will be kids born on May 1 who will be bigger and stronger than kids born in March. If the date is Sept 30, the biggest kids will be the ones born in October, not May. I fail to see how the date affects anything.

I would also add that my son, who is 12 but is only average height and weight for his age, pitched in a Dizzy Dean league where the mound was '46 and in a Middle School league (12-14 year olds) where the mound was at '54. At 46, he was a fastballer who threw very few changeups and just put the ball past kids for the most part. He was extremely effective and had one run of 8 consecutive shutout innings (over 3 games). He recorded about 1.5 strikeouts per inning. In the Middle School league, he had to throw a ton of changeups and often got hit hard if he was unable to hit his spots on the corners. That said, when he was hitting his spots, he was great -- like in the league championship game when he threw 5 innings of 3 hit ball. He only struck out 2 batters in 5 innings in that game and generally got about 1/2 a strikeout per inning in that league.

-Jason "I think being able to throw a changeup for a strike is waaay more valuable than being able to throw the ball past kids at this age" Evans

[wavedukefan70s]

I thought about this thread this morning.as a parent from the other team was removed from the field.their coach asked the guy to stop coaching from the sideline.then the argument started.it was bad.it didn't do anyone any good.poor kid was embarrassed.
(no my kid wasn't playing he sits in the dug out and supports his team .he's going to rest his fractured thumb for 6 to 8 weeks).

[Indoor66]

I thought about this thread this morning.as a parent from the other team was removed from the field.their coach asked the guy to stop coaching from the sideline.then the argument started.it was bad.it didn't do anyone any good.poor kid was embarrassed.
(no my kid wasn't playing he sits in the dug out and supports his team .he's going to rest his fractured thumb for 6 to 8 weeks).

I hope your son recovers well. I also hope your computer recovers from a lack of a space key and caps key.

[wavedukefan70s]

My pc is down. I'll refrain from posting from my cell. I swear it looks right on the phone sorry.

[allenmurray]

My pc is down. I'll refrain from posting from my cell. I swear it looks right on the phone sorry.

someofusdon'tmindatall. Wisedecisiontorestourson - theriskisnotworthit.

[allenmurray]

[QUOTE=JasonEvans;579833]when he was hitting his spots, he was great

I think being able to throw a changeup for a strike is waaay more valuable than being able to throw the ball past kids at this age

Absolutely - being able to hit spots is the best thing for a kid this age - not power. In a game last year my 11 year pithcer grazed the outside corner of the plate and it was called a ball - I shot the ump a wry look (I knew him well, and it was nothing "mean" or unsportsmanlike at all. He said to me between innings - "tell the kid to hit that spot twice in a row so I know it is "on purpose" and it will be a strike all night long. He did, and it was.

[wavedukefan70s]

someofusdon'tmindatall. Wisedecisiontorestourson - theriskisnotworthit.

Yesplentyofballtoplaylater.

[Doug.I.Am]

Umm, how does the age cutoff affect anything? If it is April 30th, there will be kids born on May 1 who will be bigger and stronger than kids born in March. If the date is Sept 30, the biggest kids will be the ones born in October, not May. I fail to see how the date affects anything.

-Jason "I think being able to throw a changeup for a strike is waaay more valuable than being able to throw the ball past kids at this age" Evans

The cutoff before the April 30th date was September 30. So potentially you have kids 7 mos older and going through puberty playing little league baseball - that's a pretty significant deal. There were many in 7th grade opting to play LL instead of modified. That was very rare before this. There was a kid(and I know every league has them) who was 6'2" and about 170 lbs. He'd hit 250-300 ft HR's. Also as you may recall, Williamsport moved the fences back the same year this was announced. Coincidence?

[greybeard]

Another Feldenkrais practitioner posted just posted the following article on an on-line practitioners' forum--"How Not to Ruin A Swimming Prodigy by Matthew Futherman, on-line Wall Street Journal, Sports, May 28.

Here is the link copied from the posting: <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303674004577434550791785644.html>

[Mal]

I'm not so sure that your statement holds up. Hitting a baseball in Little League is not what you would call a difficult thing to do. In fact, on the activity in sport, it is pretty darn easy. Are there kids who are confused, who do not understand what a coach is telling them, who might have diffiultywit the notion tat swinging a bat is different than throwing a bat, what the hips have to do with letting one's arms swing, sure.

If you are a coach that is on the cusp of bringing a team to Williamsburg, you are not trying to help such kids; such kids are not on your team, never have been, or, if they had been, they did not last very long. Helping such kids involves meeting them where they are, developing a net a safety around them, and letting them know that you know that they can teach themselves how to swing a bat or do anything else involved in playing little league baseball that they want.

Sorry for checking out of this thread for a week - it's quite interesting. Anyway, I'm with Doug.I.Am. re: the difficulty of hitting a baseball and respectfully disagreeing with your first statement. Also, throwing a baseball properly and hard, and if you're pitching, in the strike zone, is quite difficult. As is catching ground balls consistently. Baseball is, after all, the most skill-oriented (vs. pure athleticism and endurance) of the major team sports kids in the U.S. play. And most 8-year-olds do not naturally possess the fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination necessary to master the intricacies of how to hold a ball properly, how to get the bat in the hitting zone and on plane, how to load up for power, how to overcome the inclination to back up on an in between hop and charge instead, etc. Recalling back to my own days as a Little Leaguer 25-30 years ago, before there were extensive travel teams playing shadow seasons and leaving everyone else in the local league, there was a massive disparity of talent, even at age 12. I had friends who loved playing, weren't forced to by their parents and demoralized and terrified of failure and all that, but still stunk. They'd strike out every other time up and rarely get the ball out of the infield. And when we played in each other's yards or in other informal settings where there was no pressure, they still stunk. You simply can't compensate for not having the coordination and timing to hit a baseball or whiz the ball across the infield, by being a great passer or having great field/court vision or in some other way. That's somewhat less true for pitchers, of course. I never had the size to throw it 72 mph as a 12-year-old, but I grew up watching Frank Viola throw a devastating circle change and learned to use it to (lesser ) effect myself.

You're quite correct that there is a fear factor relating to baseball. But, while I'm certain there's an emotional fear of failure for some kids, overcoming the physical fear related to the fact that getting hit in the face with a baseball really freaking hurts is a faaaaaar bigger detriment to advancement for more players. Even at age 12, a lot of kids shy away from the ball, step in the bucket, retreat instead of charge, catch the ball away from their bodies. Why? They don't want to get hit, plain and simple.

FWIW, back to the subject that's taken prominence in the rest of the thread, I take a little issue with greybeard's second paragraph above, as well, at least as applied a generation ago (and I recognize we're not going back to that system anytime soon). For me, at least, starting at age 10, we had an all-star team selected at the end of the Little League season, that played anywhere from 3-5 tournaments during the summer, representing the league against other similar leagues. As 12-year-olds, that's how the teams that vied for state championships and the Little League World Series were selected. To my knowledge, none of the teams we were playing against had been together for more than a month, as they'd all been spread out through their house league. That was it, though. The bulk of the season, which started during the school year and went through maybe the 4th of July, was a league with a draft and dads coaching and even the worst players got to play and all of that. So there was plenty of incentive to coach up the "weaker" players, as competence throughout the lineup was critical to actually winning games, unless you happened to have one of the 2-3 players who were dominant pitchers on your squad. I don't have kids old enough yet to know, but I suspect this basic premise hasn't changed, however, even though in today's world the talented are siphoned off earlier.

I think the system in place when I was a kid worked fairly well, although denied some opportunity and probably didn't turn out incredibly polished players (but then again, who cares?). There was a shot at a higher level of competition for the kids who were ready for it, but they still played with their best friends most of the season, became friends with the kids on the end-of-season travel team, and could still do golf and tennis and whatever else because they weren't playing baseball five days a week from early May through August 15. When we hit 13, then there was some involuntary weeding out, but very little need for it because very few kids who couldn't do much at 45 feet and a small diamond could make the physical jump to a bigger field, anyway, so they would retire. At that point, the kid's a teenager and doesn't feel they weren't given a chance, and the parents have 5 or 6 years of cherished memories and miniature trophies for their efforts and dedication.

[snowdenscold]

You're quite correct that there is a fear factor relating to baseball. But, while I'm certain there's an emotional fear of failure for some kids, overcoming the physical fear related to the fact that getting hit in the face with a baseball really freaking hurts is a faaaaaar bigger detriment to advancement for more players. Even at age 12, a lot of kids shy away from the ball, step in the bucket, retreat instead of charge, catch the ball away from their bodies. Why? They don't want to get hit, plain and simple.

Wow, 20 years later and this sure hits home. You describe my experience in Little League quite well (in which I was never a good player). Unfortunately kids (or at least me) start sports years before they start group-oriented musical instruments - which I turned out to be a lot better at.

Anyway, one of the issues my last year of LL was the way the tryouts were setup. We had 5 levels: T-ball, A, AA, AAA, and Majors and we had to try-out after the AAA year to either be selected for a Majors team, or to do AAA again. Now, the hitting tryout consisted of being in a batting cage with a machine throwing to the same place each time - fine, no problem. I was able to hit all the balls that way and gave the coaches an unrealistic impression of my hitting ability. Now when it was a real game, and the pitch delivery wasn't so predictable, I got scared (and/or just wasn't good since I no longer knew exactly where the ball was going) and didn't do that well at the plate. I was honestly concerned each time I went up about getting hit by a pitch - because kids were able to throw much faster by that last year.

The entire year wasn't much fun because I was over my head and would have had a much better time on the AAA team coached by my next door neighbor.

[Duvall]

What about the idea that football has the worst parents, because they are allowing their kids to play football?