Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Member
|
quote: ...whose mandate was to get their players ready for college and higher.
Starting at what age? |
| |
| Posts: 250 | Location: ttt | Registered: August 12, 2007 | |
|
Member
|
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. |
| |
| Posts: 88 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: October 19, 2007 | |
|
Member
|
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. |
| |
| Posts: 88 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: October 19, 2007 | |
|
Member
|
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.
|
| |
| Posts: 57 | Location: Dallas Area | Registered: October 24, 2007 | |
|
Member
|
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. |
| |
| Posts: 57 | Location: Dallas Area | Registered: October 24, 2007 | |
|
Member
|
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.
|
| |
| Posts: 77 | Location: Arizona | Registered: October 11, 2005 | |
|
HSBBWeb Old Timer
|
. 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 . |
| |
|
Member
|
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. |
| |
| Posts: 250 | Location: ttt | Registered: August 12, 2007 | |
|
Member
|
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!!
|
| |
| Posts: 298 | Location: Idaho | Registered: March 13, 2008 | |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Copyright 1998-2008 High School Baseball Web
|
