I'd like to tap the expertise on this board where almost every poster's kid is past preteen ball, and a strong majority have kids playing at least high school ball. I want to help settle a pi$$ing match on another board. The debate is about playing 50/70 open bases versus LL in the preteen years.

The closed bases crowd says it doesn't take two entire years (13U and 14U) to learn how to play open bases and by high school it's about talent and work ethic, not where the kids plays in his prepubescent years.

The open bases crowd claims their kids are way ahead of the closed base kids and they don't catch up.

The question isn't which one is better or worse to play. The question isn't which one did your kid play. The question is .....

Question:
By high school does it matter whether a kid played open bases or closed bases baseball in his prepubescent, preteen years?

Choices:
Yes
No

 

Give me a break. There are thousands and thousands of kids who came up through LL and are playing in HS (and the MLB) for that matter.

Seems like the unknowledgeable few want to keep bringing this up. The athletes rise to the top no matter where they came from, period end of story. Stop this nonsense.

If a kid learns to throw properly and swing the bat properly during those years he will be fine.

The more players I watch progress from youth baseball to high school baseball and beyond, the more I realize how little those 12 and under years matter.

Edit:
Obviously, I voted no. In my opinion, a good athlete could learn to hit and throw on his own and not even play organized ball until after 12.

While I don't think it matters much I will say that my son experienced both when 12U. He played Cal ripken which was primarily still 46'/60'. At the same time he was on a team put together to play in Cooperstown so he was learning the 50'/70' game at the same time, especially after the end of the Cal Ripken season. That fall he played "Step-up" which was played on the 90' diamond to prepare for Babe ruth the following year. The cooperstown experience did help him prepare for it somewhat but he would have learned it anyways through "step-up" and the following year with Babe ruth and school ball.

I will state that I think the game is more exciting on the 50/70 field and like that Cal Ripken League realized that a lot of the kids are getting too big at 11 & 12 for 60' diamonds and started allowing leagues to switch to the 50'/70' diamonds. Their main world Series for 12U kids is now played on the 50/70 diamond.

What are open and closed bases?

I played LL with short bases (I don't remember how far they were), and by the time I was 13 and into senior league (90ft bases, 60'6" mound), I struggled. Then the next year when I was 14, I was ripping every pitcher a new a-hole.

For me at least, it took a year to adjust after LL. I don't think its a matter of the distance the bases are though, its that you are bigger, stronger, and more experienced relative to the other kids.

quote:

I will state that I think the game is more exciting on the 50/70 field

My son played both open (lead offs) and closed (no lead offs) and I agree that open bases is 'better' baseball; more fun, more exciting, more involving...However, the question is 'does it matter by HS' and I would have to say 'no'.

My son plays small HS baseball. Our 3B this year will be a kid that never play organized baseball on the small field. He's fine. He's picked up the game at 13, and at 16, he can start at the small HS level. He would proably make the team at almost any HS. No one can tell he's only been playing for a couple of years...(and, no, he's not an athletic freak of nature.)

Makes no difference in the long run. We have middle school ball here in NC and it did make a difference for many of the 7th graders, but by the time they hit the 8th grade, they had caught up.

Only difference I see is for the 13/14's ... if the kids they play with/against came up through the same youth sports programs, it won't make any difference at all. If not, they may struggle for a year.

I don't like the little league expanded (super-sized) strike zone though. Some may disagree, but I think it encourages over-throwing. The base path sizes don't matter at all and leading off/base stealing is a skill that is easily learned (but often never mastered, regardless of system you came up through).

obtw: We didn't play LL in our town, so the kids were leading off from the age of 10 on ...

I agree that is has no bearing. The only thing it might do is keep the game a little more interesting and keep kids playing baseball versus going on to other sports. We have seem to lose a lot of kids to Lacrosse in this area.

I've seen kids who only played 46/60 ball (Little League) through age 12 move on to HS ball with success, but they do have a difficult time catching up to those who have played 50/70 in their 11u and 12u years.

Partly this is because the 46/60 field is simply too small, especially at the 12u level, so the players are not really challenged to improve. A SS who throws poorly, for example, can get by at 46/60 dimensions but not from the 50/70 dimensions. So, on the larger field he is forced to improve his techniques earlier on in order to stay in the game.

Also, the competition level is far better in travel ball generally -- though with the proliferation of youth teams now, there are indeed travel teams who are not any better than your typical rec league team -- but on balance, a travel player will have more meaningful experience and thus be faster to make the many decisions involved in playing the game without hesitation.

I also think the LL jump from 46/60 to 60/90 all in one step runs a lot of discouraged 13's out of baseball entirely. It works so much better to step up to 50/70 first. Those kids are better prepared when the time comes to go to 60/90.

There will always be those who are "late bloomers", either in their ability or perhaps in their level of interest in the game. Plenty of kids never play travel and do well in HS. But I don't think anyone could argue with a straight face that the kids who played in a quality travel program didn't have a leg up. It doesn't give them more athletic ability, but it does help with building proper technique habits and with learning the mental side of the game.

Baseball is not like football, where you see kids come out for the first time their junior years of HS or you see bartenders become NFL kickers in a week's time. In football, if you're willing to throw yourself in front of an oncoming train, we have a jersey for you, and besides, the roster sizes are often practically unlimited. Baseball in many ways more closely remembers golf. It is a precision game that requires a rare combination of knowledge, decision making, skill, conditioning and athleticism. The last one has to be innate, but the other things are learned incrementally over a period of years.

To me it always comes down to preparedness. I want my son to be the best prepared he can be when he steps onto the HS field. I want him to be the frontrunner for the position. I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

Travel allows this. Superior technique, skills and experience allow this that are gained in good travel teams. Why would you want your child to be behind the curve when they don't even know where the curve is?

IMO it makes absolutely no difference for HS baseball whether a kid played 40/60 or 50/70.
Reasons:
1. Baseball is not rocket science. A position player can learn to take leads in a few practices.
If he didn't learn where to throw the ball in little league, he may never learn. If he can hit he can take all the time he needs.
2. Middle school baseball gives a kid experience if needed.
3. IMO a player improves his game in the off season. If he a good player who works in the off season while playing 40/60 he will be a better player than a good 50/70 player who doesn't work in the off season.

My son's HS team last year had maybe one kid who played travel before 13. His school is the largest classification in the state. They lost in the state final game this year.

No doubt things are changing fast but talent is talent regardless where you played when young. The most important thing is to work to improve the talent.

quote:

I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

Travel allows this. Superior technique, skills and experience allow this that are gained in good travel teams. Why would you want your child to be behind the curve when they don't even know where the curve is?

I think those are very, very good questions. If all we are talking about his high school, I won't argue against your approach if being ahead in baseball is what those years are about. I would argue against it for other reasons, however.
In the bigger world of competitive baseball, my answer to your views and questions changes dramatically. As they move up the baseball pyramid, eventually, nearly everyone of our sons will need to do that: catch up and knock somebody out of an established spot. Most often that will be in college or Milb.
The problem with it occurring then, for the first time, is they are managing many, many other issues without the support system that he relied upon before college. If your son has always had a competitive advantage because he played travel, year round and had more repetitions, what happens when he gets to college where he is competing with other similar players, or players who did not do that but are the infamous late bloomer/two sport guy who takes off when he starts getting daily reps on a year round basis?
Having my son enjoy playing multiple sports through high school, having him learn to compete in every sport for playing time, and having him earn every single inning in high school, college and Summer wood bat leagues had to help him have an advantage when he got to Milb, sat for the first 3 weeks, got a start when a starter missed the travel bus, went 4-5 and start 118 of the next 122 games.
Sometimes they are much better off finding the curve on their own, getting around it and proving to themselves they can. Sometimes we are better off realizing they are better off.

I was talking about HS. I don't see any reason to give somebody else the advantage. When he graduates he will also be as prepared as he can be. I have no idea what he will need to be prepared for at that time, baseball or probably something else, but he will be prepared. Giving someone an advantage over you when it isn't necessary is kind of silly to me. Why wouldn't you study and take the prep courses for your SAT? Why not be as prepared as you can for every endeavor you undertake in life? To do anything else is just lazy IMO. Hard work and achieving your goals is good for every aspect in life. Youth baseball is no different, especially since they love it.

If players are athletic and competitive, our experience is they love the sport they are doing at the time.
My view is that there can be paralysis from analysis.
A year round player on a well coached travel team is going to be better prepared on the first day of the HS season than the kid who played football and/or basketball and shows up in football/basketball shape ready to play baseball.
The kid who takes the SAT prep courses will be better prepared for the SAT.
Neither means they will perform better when the test/game occurs. Neither means they will compete better when they move to another level and whatever advantage they might have had in HS due to more reps is removed.
Our son attended a small high school where nearly every baseball player also played another sport. They started practice around January 25 each year, except for the basketball guys. With a good HS coach, by March 1, they could compete with most any HS in our area, many of whom had only year round players.
Reading this board has certainly convinced me that many parents feel playing year round at earlier ages provides an edge and provides an advantage, or puts someone who does not at a disadvantage. On day one, I readily agree it does.
I just don't buy it over the longer view, once players are taking reps and practicing in a competitive environment and competing on equal terms.
In fact, while I did not want our son to play, I can readily recognize his playing football provided a mental toughness, a mental courage, a mental intensity and a mental strength he would never had just playing baseball.
When the playing fields evened in terms of reps, my personal view is his mental strength was at least as useful, and perhaps even more of an advantage, than any physical advantage he might have gained playing year round baseball.

This sort of discussion is all new to me---when my last guy came into HS back in the early 90's he went direct from LL fields (small) to HS diamonds (full size) there was no problem---in my day there were no fields with intermediate dimensions and I had no problem

Parenst worry too much today--just let the kids play baseball---they will find their way

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman :
I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

I don't know how you can control that.

Sometimes the HS coach has "his guys"

All the player can do is have some talent, work hard at his game get some good coaching along the way, play the game the right way and carry himself the right way on the ballfield. My son was a well coached, fundamentally sound player who kept having to prove himself and pay his dues on JV to become a starter on the varsity level despite playing on all--stars and travel teams and receiving good coaching. He should've been a varsity starter long before he earned his spot and that opinion was shared with many other parents (maybe except the ones who's sons he was competing for playing time with )who watched him play but the only voice that counted was the head coach's. He was the one he had to prove it to. When he did beat out the established players to win a starting spot, he was an impact player who was well prepared to play against some of the best players in the county and around the state and held his own quite well.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

zomby, are you sure I posted that? That doesn't sound like me!

I thought I was agreeing with TR and you!

i played LL, both my son's played LL. for many reasons i like the 50/70 much better. i never worried about my kids development,i wanted all the kids to develop. i think you'd see more kids playing longer if they were'nt thrown into the 60/90 from 45/60. or if your a glass half empty guy,you'd just lose them sooner........but i doubt it.

if your a player your a player, you'll be fine. my thoughts are how many struggle at 13 and move to another sport,that may have been player's ?

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

zomby, are you sure I posted that? That doesn't sound like me!

I thought I was agreeing with TR and you!

LOL...No, I corrected it....call it pilot error.

quote:

I do not want him to be the guy that has to play catch up and try to knock somebody out of an established spot.

That quote was me Zomby.

I know that you can't control what a coach will do. Wouldn't even try. But if you have the talent and the skills from the first day, you have a much better chance of being one of the coaches guys.

Why not be prepared? Two talented guys go out for SS. One has better skills, who gets the job?