Yes, it makes sense to have a gradual change, but it absolutely isn’t necessary. But the reason I don’t believe in it, isn’t that it doesn’t make sense, but rather that I’m a big believer in trying to keep things as equal as possible for all players, and not all players have the chance to play on gradually increased sized fields.
Originally Posted by Roothog66
We have a situation here, where the close fields our kids have access to are contracted to a LLI league. We have a 60/90, a 46/60, and a SB field. There is a big CR program about 25 miles south, and a lot of parents leave the LLI program because they think like you, the gradual change is a big deal. Finally, enough people got the wild hair, and they decided that since there was only one LLI Jr team using the big field, they’d lease it to the CR league so they could have another field.
The 1st thing they did was move the mound to 54 and re-peg the bases to 80. Then to make things work out “right”, they ripped out the 10’ of IF grass to make the basepaths play right. The end result is, we no longer have a 60/90 because every time the 60’ mound get’s rebuilt, there’s a war between the two groups. Out old timer’s team had to stop using the field, the LL Jrs stopped using the field, and now we don’t have anyplace within 25 miles that has a 10’ high, 60’ mound.
Well, in my mind, none of that was worth the year or two transition the players got, and there are variations of that that happen in quite a few places all over the country. There’s just too many damn rulebooks for me, and that means too many differences, and when everyone doesn’t have the same opportunities, to me it isn’t fair. Yeah, I know life ain’t fair, but it sure oughta be!
The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.