OT: Is little league baseball dying or thriving?

Submitted by Marvin on

I'm currently in Florida for my 11 year old's final travel baseball tournament of the season. A dad from another team was commenting on how "park ball" has given way to these specialized travel tournaments because fewer kids are now playing little league, and that in general baseball culture is slowly dying with kids these days. Here in the south I don't know that I see baseball slipping away like that, but it makes me wonder about how things are going in the north (where I used to live) or just in general. What do the rest of you think? Does baseball no longer hold the place it once did among kids in America?

mlax27

June 30th, 2016 at 7:11 AM ^

I definitely see a slip in baseball since I was a kid. Other sports (mostly soccer) are taking away from baseball. Additionally it is a very slow paced game. Kids just don't often have the attention span to be interested when a game on tv takes 3 hours to play. I remember watching the tigers play regular season games as a kid, but I won't even turn on the World Series unless the tigers are in it.

MGoGrendel

June 30th, 2016 at 8:54 AM ^

I started coaching in Little League (Illinois) before my oldest was born.  My recollection is that the good kids were very good (compared to rec kids today).  Many of the 12 year olds on my summer all-star team went on to play high school baseball.  Four were on the high school basketball team that made the final four in the state tournament.  There was no travel ball at that time (mid 80's).

By the time my older sons could play, we had a choice of which rec league we could join.  There was no shortage of leagues and they had a lot of kids participating. 

My youngest boy is 10 and plays in the rec ball league (Georgia).  He's made the summer all-star team the last two years and he (not me) is considering travel ball.  Our park is the best in the area and is packed with players.  Each season sees one to two teams worth of boys leave to play travel ball, starting at 8 (!).  That said, we had 12 teams in our 9/10U league and 8 in 11/12U league.  I do see that the right fielder/last batter quits after 10U and before moving up to the (slightly) bigger fields.

Based on TV ratings and the US players abilities at the Little League World Series, I see that it's still going strong. We play Dizzy Dean baseball in our area, but did have both baseball and softball LLWS champs come out of the same GA city recently.

Based in my view, youth baseball is healthy (be it LL or DD sanctioned).

jmblue

June 30th, 2016 at 11:04 AM ^

Agree that the length of Major League games is a problem.  Umpires need to crack down more on time-wasting, from both pitchers and batters.    

It doesn't help when playoff games are almost all during prime time as well.  A kid who's got school the next day isn't going to watch much of a game that starts at 9:00 p.m.

Mr. Dinsmore

July 1st, 2016 at 7:52 AM ^

The average NFL or college game is over 3.5 hours, features a whopping ELEVEN MINUTES of actual play, and is interrupted by over 100 television commercials.

Attention span? You can get a sandwich, take a shit and go grocery shopping in between plays during a football game.

Baeball features a lot more action, more nuances, more subtlety, and is far more exciting both on TV and in person.

I know, it's great talking points to make baseball seem like a doddering old fool, while football is the new Cool Kid on the block, but dumb talking points are for republicans, not sports fans who like to think and actually take a side-by-side comparison of the two sports.

Let's face it--what makes football more exciting are half-naked cheerleaders, the prospect of seeing someone's head split in half, the one or two times a game a long pass is completed, and the strategery that seems to be involved with handing off twice, throwing a pass, then punting.

Another plus for football--once per week, not five games per week saturation and a marathon season.

Other than that? Baseball is a much better sport and is no less exciting than the average 17-10 megasnooze between the Minnesota Vomit and the Pittsburgh Dingleberries.

M and M Boys

July 1st, 2016 at 4:26 AM ^

and it did not merit a thread.
Compare that to hoops or the football mania that takes over MGOBLOG in those NC events....
wow!...what a statement of indifference while steady postings of foreign club soccer trivia keeps rolling along....

trueblue262

June 30th, 2016 at 8:35 AM ^

It is stronger, has more support. As does soccer. But I also think that it has become harder for kids to play 2 or 3 sports anymore. Atleast competetively. Each sport seems to be a year round commitment more and more and if you want to stay competetive in a sport, you can't just be a "season player" Which I think is unfortunate.

jabberwock

June 30th, 2016 at 8:56 AM ^

whats worse is that my oldest daughter plays 3 sports.  (swimming, softball, soccer) 

All 3 coachs say "I want athletes that compete in other sports".

Then those same 3 coaches bitch & whine when we have to miss a practice or (very rarely) a game because of a scheduling conflict with one of those other sports.

They all talk the talk, but when puch comes to shove, they want THEIR 2-3 practices a week to take complete priority.

BlueFish

June 30th, 2016 at 9:13 AM ^

I would say the same thing: I want my players (and kids) to play other sports, because it makes them more athletic, makes the better in all the sports they play, and reduces the likelihood of injury.

However, that doesn't mean I want them to play all of their sports in the same season of the year.

MGoBender

June 30th, 2016 at 10:19 AM ^

They all talk the talk, but when puch comes to shove, they want THEIR 2-3 practices a week to take complete priority.

Uhhh... they shouldn't play 3 sports AT ONCE. Whatever is in-season takes priority. I take it your daughter is not yet in high school; in Michigan, softball and soccer are both spring sports, so while coaches should want athletes playing multiple sports, I don't think they want athletes playing two sports AT ONCE.

I coach at the high school level. I want 3-sport athletes because the more 3-sport athletes my school has, the better athletes I have playing for my team (and the other coaches have playing for their teams). I don't care how much you focus on or specialize... If you let me choose: You get player A who plays basketball all year, OR you get player A who plays basketball (main sport), baseball and footbal AND you get player B who is also an exceptional athlete but only plays basketball in the winter for school. I'm taking the second option, easily.

As a coach, it gets frustrating when I get option B; the lacrosse or football or soccer player that tries to play on my team while also playing their club sport year round. Take a freaking break and let the in-season team take precedence. You'll be healthier, happier and get more out of that second sport.

M and M Boys

June 30th, 2016 at 11:50 AM ^

fervent Club, Travel and "Showcase" coaches who now can convince some very good athletes not even to play on their HS team.

Fact is, not many HS teams have competent coaches compared to the summer coaching talent in baseball/softball.

Sadly, the focus from junior high school on is not about just about sportsmanship, fun and camaraderie.  Zealous parents drink the "scholarship" Kool-Aid and all things change from that point very quickly......those who are involved in the process RIGHT NOW know exactly the spirit of these remarks.............

The High School coaches know it better than anyone else.........

MGoBender

June 30th, 2016 at 12:35 PM ^

I see that; I'm probably lucky in that at the school I coach at, there's not a single varsity coach who isn't both very qualified and good at developing players.

Problem is probably at the middle school level. Coaching there is usually a small step up from "volunteer dad," so if you're looking to get serious at that age, then yeah, club/travel is the way to go.  However, I'd still argue that through 7th grade, I'd rather have my future players playing as many sports as possible, even if it meant playing less in the sport I coach.

jabberwock

June 30th, 2016 at 4:27 PM ^

play as many sports as

a. they want to

b.  they can play without it interferring with school 

c. we can afford

d.  we can actually commit to as far as scheduleing practices/games 

most of my oldest daughters friends play 2-3 sports, mostly travel.

 

They are pretty self-motivated, by the time these girls are nearing/in middle school there is little to no "parents living out their failed fantsies though their kids" syndrome, although there are a few parental scholarship chasers.

Those are hilarious because they spend 2x as much $ on personal trainers & private coaches instead of just bputting that $ in an MESP.

M and M Boys

July 1st, 2016 at 4:13 AM ^

who cannot afford to stay on the treadmill but do it to fuel parental egos.
"Showcase" is killing some families financially and they have not forged any educational backup (which should be primary) plan with a funding formula,

StraightDave

June 30th, 2016 at 9:21 AM ^

Baseball is booming in the DFW area and I would say soccer is now on the decline.   Soccer became a trendy sport with all the football concussion talk but over the last two seasons my kid's soccer team has had fewer kids try out. 

Lacrosse is taking off in my area and I'd say lacrosse has diverted more kids away from football and baseball than soccer.

superstringer

June 30th, 2016 at 7:31 AM ^

I think it depends where you live. But where I live, travel teams have superior players, and they play and practice a lot more. Top HS prpgrams are fed by the travel teams. LL is for kids who arent serious about it. Some travel kids do LL but generally are the stars of their team.

And its not just baseball--softball is that way too. Basketball/AAU is another example.

Its this mindset of parents, instead of having your kid do a lot of activities, just inundate them in one to mKe them as awesome as possible. Undoubtedly the ultimate reason for this is the massive $$$ available in pro sports, or at least a college scholly. Everyone wants their family set for life if their kids gets a pro contract. (Well not the softball players.)

And its probably illusory. Cal Ripkin one noted that, in football, baseball and basketball, pro players generally were not dominant in their sports at ages 8-14. So being a star on an under-12 travel team doesnt mean shit, really.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Carl Spackler

June 30th, 2016 at 7:50 AM ^

I don't think  you can totally blame the parents for this.  My guess is that you are not a parent or have kids in the 10-14 age group playing sports have no experience with this.  

My experience with this:  My son was not interested in sports until the World Cup in Brazil.  Then for whatever reason, he really wanted to play soccer.  He was 9.  I signed him up for rec soccer and it was terrible.  The "coach" we got was a mom who had no experience with soccer--this wasn't really the bad part.  The bad part was she didn 't show up for 4 of the 8 games on Saturday mornings.  She "overslept" for these games.  If you can imagine, this led to many other issues.  

To avoid this problem again, my son tried out for club soccer.  He made the team.  The thing about club soccer--and this is the point I'm getting at--is  that THEY require the kid to spend a ton of time playing their sport.  They are not flexible with a kid playing mulitple sports.  The child has to try out every year, and if your child missed several practices because of other sports, they aren't making the team the next year--unless you have a junior Messi or something.  

Speaking to other parents, most wish the club required LESS time from the kids so that kids could have other interests as well.  Its not the parents pushing this from my experience.  

sorry for spelling and grammar.

Oregon Wolverine

June 30th, 2016 at 8:53 AM ^

I've got three girls, ages 15, 13 and 9, who've played tball, baseball, competitive softball, basketball, volleyball, soccer and track. Now the oldest plays HS basketball, volleyball and track. They've run the gamut of rec, CYO, club volleyball and basketball, development academy soccer, and now competitive soccer.

Other than short overlaps, it's been one sport at a time plus one extracurricular, usually music. House rule.

First, it's utterly exhausting for me and the kids, even at one. At young ages the joy of sport is getting destroyed in these competitive clubs. For some of my kids' friends it's THREE sports at a time, I really don't know how the kids stay sane or have the time to be a kid anymore. Unstructured play time has been proven to be incredibly important for emotional and intellectual development. When they don't have "an activity" planned for them, it's often, "I'm bored" "what should I do?" It's as if they have come to need constant helicopter parents to give them structure. Granted mine have the problem of two households and baby momma who acts like a cruise director, constantly arranging everything on her weeks (50-50 split). But that's the culture now. When a kid's parent calls to set up play dates, I hand the phone to my girls. They don't get it that if they want friends, I'm not their matchmaker and social planner. They need to figure it out. Too many planned activities, including over structured sports and they don't know how to initiate friend time.

I look at them and tell them to "go out and play", call/text a friend, drop by someone's house, read a book, and they look at my like I'm crazy.

Second, my kids love the competition -- I support but don't push.

But I really don't think the "specialization" and push for one sport is healthy. They are KIDS, go try something new, fall in love w/YOUR sport, not mine. Pick a sport you can grow up with and have as an adult. Experiment for christsakes, you're a KID. Don't think your going to be a pro or get a scholarship, but if uve got the drive, I'll support you.

There is a constant battle out there, "I'm too far behind to try a new sport." "I'll never be good." "I've got to be the best at the sport or I'm not going to play."

And it's the parents who are at fault.

Our children are not our surrogates playing out our lost dreams.

There needs to be more diversity of activities.

Year round one sport specialization under 14 yrs old should be highly discouraged. It kills me that my 9 year old has to choose between her competitive soccer team (year round) or rec soccer (where she would have no competition and look like Messi on steroids) so she can try new sports.

Let them be kids. Well-rounded and healthy.

Being a kid is a special time and we're ruining it.

(Don't get me started on video games, TV, and unsocial media)




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Mike60586

June 30th, 2016 at 8:58 AM ^

I have kids that play multiple sports in travel/club teams.

It's all about setting expectations with the coaches about priorities when a conflict occurs.  The communication up front eliminates angst and hard feelings later.

When it does occur, here is what we have told both coaches:

Tournaments > Games

Games > Practice

If there is a conflict where game = game, then we will alternate, depening on the competition that the game will bring.

 

 

 

 

MGoBender

June 30th, 2016 at 10:44 AM ^

To avoid this problem again, my son tried out for club soccer. He made the team. The thing about club soccer--and this is the point I'm getting at--is that THEY require the kid to spend a ton of time playing their sport. They are not flexible with a kid playing mulitple sports. The child has to try out every year, and if your child missed several practices because of other sports, they aren't making the team the next year--unless you have a junior Messi or something.

Well, I think club soccer is the worst and I don't doubt you've experienced this. Club soccer coaches are usually the coaches, in my experience, that truly don't care about kids playing multiple sports. Especially if they are foreign, they come from a culture where it is always soccer, year round.

The thing is I agree with them that you shouldn't be playing on multiple serious teams at the same time. But if they threaten your kid with not making the team if your kid doesn't play year-round or doesn't put in extra time outside of the scheduled games and practices; then you shouldn't have your kid play on that team. Nobody is forcing you. There are other teams. And, let's get real here: If you kid is THAT good, they aren't going to cut him. Also, also, if your kid is THAT good, the team needs him and not vice-versa.

Don't be fooled. You the parent have the power, not the coach. You pay their salary. And if you've lost sight of that, you've been tricked by a salesman into thinking that the salesman has the power.

Carl Spackler

June 30th, 2016 at 11:14 AM ^

 My son is not THAT good--i'm not sure where you got this from my post.  He doesn't have the leverage of being the best player on the team.  Bottom line right now: He likes soccer and wants to play.  Rec was a disaster and club expects a lot of time to be on the team.  Just saying that its not always the parents who are forcing kids to pick one sport.  

In reply to by Carl Spackler

MGoBender

June 30th, 2016 at 12:32 PM ^

Sorry, I was speaking in general, not about your situation in particular.  Is there only 1 club team in your area?  Usually there are a few and, in my experience, if you want to play you're going to make a team. Maybe not the best team in the area, but there's gonna be a team for you/your kid.

Then again, I live in an area with a lot of club teams in all sports, maybe it's different around you.

In reply to by Carl Spackler

Oregon Wolverine

June 30th, 2016 at 6:58 PM ^

My youngest was like Gretzky in Rec, scoring five or more in the first half, then the coach would call her off and tell her to stop scoring.  

When she got to competitive, she lost all of her confidence because she was nowhere close to the best kid on the team -- right in the middle of what was, granted, probably the best club team in the state. She recovered by the end of the year and seemed to start having fun again...

Now this year she graduated from "U9" (under 9 based on school calendar, playing with all 2d graders) to "06" (birth year based which moved the DOB cutoff which bumped her up an extra age group), giving her another hit to the confidence, and increasing pressure from the coaches as it gets more and more business, less and less fun.

She says she's having fun, but I wish there was another meaningful option where she could play for four months, and then try something new. 

Let the competitive start at 13 or 14, but if we yank her she'll be miles behind.

Seems like its designed to burn kids out.

And when they get injured, they'll be lost, not knowing what to do with themselves. They are starting to find ACL injuries tied to isolation and depression, especially in girls and young women.

UMdad

June 30th, 2016 at 8:53 AM ^

My son plays travel baseball now, and although the cost is high (but reasonable compared to some of the other area travel programs), I am ok with paying it as he loves the sport, his team, etc.  

I am amazed though at the amount of parents who throw incredible amounts of money at these programs and the individualized training in hopes of their kid earning a college scholorship.  Some of these programs are $2,000 + a year for the team, and then they spend easily an additional $1000-$1,500 a year on training and equipment.  

As most non big three sports offer very few full ride scholorships (choosing instead to spread partial scholorships around) spending $3,000+ a year in HOPES of a partial scholorship seems like a poor investment.  That kind of money in a 529 starting at 9 years old would damn year pay for their education.  

MGoGrendel

June 30th, 2016 at 9:00 AM ^

My son is in rec ball and has turned into a pretty good catcher and strong hitter.  He can make the move to travel.  (There are lesser players from our rec league now playing in AA - not sure why a dad would pay so much for his kid to play right field and bat last, but I digress)

I would be interested in doing travel ball so we can play a tournament at Williamsport.  That would be a cool "bucket list" opportunity for me and a memory that a 12 year old boy can have for his life.

Wendyk5

June 30th, 2016 at 10:02 AM ^

My son's travel team went to Cooperstown when he was 12. It was his first year playing travel, and they had a great time. The coaches were fun college guys, and they knew going in they were going to get their asses kicked by the southern teams from Georgia and Florida, which they did. In the first game they played, against a team from California, the score in the bottom of the first was 15-0. 

Michigan Arrogance

June 30th, 2016 at 7:42 AM ^

The travel stuff is pretty outragous IMO. But LL is fine. Not as much participation per capita perhaps, but I think the overall numbers are decent, at least in NYS.

The thing is, LL is based on volunteer coaching (parents) and since most of the parents are Americans, they *think* they know the game but in reality don't know shit - especially teaching it. In my little league most coaches just throw out the best kid at catching at 1st, the best arms on the IF and the rest in the OF/C. get 2-3 kids to hit BP and 90mins later everyone is bored as hell. No skill development, not teaching kids how to catch, throw, field, hit.

So I can understand parents of kids with potential and "want to" not making progress in little league and moving to a better situation

Oregon Wolverine

June 30th, 2016 at 9:00 AM ^

Our local LL is pretty strong, which surprises me in the rain (PDX). I coached for several years.

We had coaches clinics at a local college regularly -- super helpful. Between that, YouTube links for the kids, and a couple of books/DVDs which were hand-me-downs from my brother's coaching (love the Cal Ripkin stuff) our kids had much better instruction than I had growing up in suburban DTW.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

EGD

June 30th, 2016 at 9:21 AM ^

There is a little league team that practices at the park across the street from my house. The coach is amazingly terrible. I think the players are maybe 8 or 9 years old, most of them are poor fielders and struggle to make a decent throw--yet he always has them working on advanced stuff as though they already have the fundamentals down. For instance, one day this season I saw him spend almost an entire practice drilling the 3-6-3 double play. The worst thing about it was probably that the drill really only involved a few kids (the 1B, SS, and baserunners), while the rest of the team stood and watched. I didn't see any of their games but I'd be pretty surprised if they ever had a chance to turn a 3-6-3 double play. Other practices I've observed were similar, with most kids doing nothing while a few players worked on some advanced procedure or another. Basic skills were simply not addressed. (And all that's without even mentioning the awkward season from a couple years ago when the coach had two girlfriends simultaneously, and they would show up to practice and start arguments). Despite all that, I give the coach a lot of credit--he's good with the kids, he does this voluntarily and has been at it for years. I couldn't do that.

Wendyk5

June 30th, 2016 at 9:58 AM ^

My son didn't get a decent coach until he played on travel. House league was a crap shoot. There was one dad volunteer coach who was seriously emotionally unstable. He thought he was coaching the major leagues. Another dad coach would only pitch his own kid, and this was 5th/6th grade house league. My husband did a lot with both my kids outside of their teams, which helped their games tremendously. Without that, I don't think they would have continued, just based on the coaching they got in earlier years. 

julesh

June 30th, 2016 at 7:46 AM ^

At the park right down the street from me it seems like there's a different team playing a game every day this summer. So from my NIMBY perspective, seems pretty strong. 

Steve in PA

June 30th, 2016 at 8:00 AM ^

Alternative leagues are thriving as LL struggles to maintain status quo.  Local teams from Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken regularly compete for state and regional titles.  LL teams rarely progress far because all the better kids play in other leagues.

Softball is the same.  Milton won the Softball LLWS a few year back but all the better talent plays ASA.  

Players can play regular season LL in both but are ineligible for post season because they play in another league at the same time.*  From the baseball side, the rules are more like real baseball and prepare kids for playing at the next level while LL rules are more focused on everyone participating, not getting hurt, and coming back next year.

 

 

*Unless LL changed the rules yet again to gain more participation.

Clarence Beeks

June 30th, 2016 at 8:00 AM ^

Baseball is moving in the direction that hockey has always done with youth development, with travel and house, where the best players play travel (or both). I don't see how giving kids who want to play more and at a higher level the ability to play more and against superior competition is a bad thing.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

EGD

June 30th, 2016 at 10:18 AM ^

The tone of your comments suggest you are being purposefully dense. julesh's point, that the high cost of travel sports tends to exclude kids from lower-income backgrounds, seems pretty obvious, and I think most people would agree that denying poor kids the same opportunities to play sports that wealthier kids have is a bad thing. That's all he said. The fact that julesh didn't propose a solution to this problem does not mean the problem doesn't exist. There could be many possible solutions, each with their own pros and cons--but that's a different question.

Clarence Beeks

June 30th, 2016 at 11:08 AM ^

The tone of your comment then also suggests that you are being purposefully dense (your words, not mine, but thanks for the insult) in ignoring my post  where I said "Are they not able to play at all if they can't play on the travel team?" to which the answer is unquestionably that they can play.  That is a point that julesh conveniently never answered, which if you read all of the comments, explains my "tone".  Providing the same opportunity is not the same thing as providing an opportunity to play, and it's completely meaningless to level the complaint that you have to be able to provide the exact same opportunity without also then explaining how to do that.  There is undeniably equal opportunity to play, but there are a lot of factors both economic and non-economic that go into at which level you play.  So, seriously, let's hear some ideas on how to level that playing field.

Clarence Beeks

June 30th, 2016 at 11:12 AM ^

"I think most people would agree that denying poor kids the same opportunities to play sports that wealthier kids have is a bad thing."

Assuming for a second that we all do agree that we need to provide everyone the exact same opportunities in terms of level of participation (which is what you're saying), as opposed to providing everyone the opportunity to play at all (which is what I'm saying), how does anyone fix that?

HAILtoBO

June 30th, 2016 at 8:02 AM ^

With all the new little league rules for players safety and everything, it's dying. More parents are signing and enrolling they're kids into travel ball. Much better competition and no bs rules like teams or players getting in trouble for holding a bat in a dugout.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Cowboy Cody

June 30th, 2016 at 8:03 AM ^

I'll chime in as an old dude. Don't know about the LL aspect today, but I do know that I almost NEVER see kids just heading out to a field to play ball after school or during the summer. It's sad to see the declining "love of the game" that kids used to have for baseball.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad