Thoughts on Playing Up

[JCincy]

Boredom is a function of poor coaching... not the level at which he plays. There are plenty of 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 year old kids playing for poor coaching who are bored - Apples and Oranges.

Yes, boredom can be a result of poor coaching. It can also be result of not playing at the proper level.

Again, this is apples and oranges... If he's a great chess player then he should be playing age appropriate chess.

Age appropriate chess?

In 7th and 8th grade I played competitive chess through our school system. We played kids from ages 12 to 18. But using your ridiculous logic only 13 year olds should play 13 year olds, regardless of their ability. I was the #2 player in my school system (not in my district) and my main competition came from a senior (#1) and a sophomore (#3) in my 8th grade year. But alas, if you were in charge, I would have never played them. And I would have been BORED playing against the kids in my own class, because I was significantly better than they were at chess.


It's a bit disturbing that you group all kids together simply by their age.

[JCincy]

My personal opinion, based on what I have seen in a league where kids are forced to play certain levels based on date of birth...

I didn't want to repeat your whole post, but I agree with your concepts. Birth date is only ONE factor in determining how to group kids.

I have witnessed situations in sports where lesser developed children were put in unsafe situations simply because they are forced to play with their age group. Where is the wisdom in that?

[brandtb1]

Wow, I did not mean to open a big can of worms and thank you for everyone opinion. The reason that I am considering moving him up is based on what I think is best and I will try to explain that. The current league which I do not want to move from, has the 4-6 year olds as a purely welcome to baseball league. Every kid bats each inning (usually 2) and it looks like most teams do not even practice. I coached our team this year and we had a one hour practice and a game each week. I had some great parents that helped out and our team was prepared for games. I timed it last night and we hit for 12 minutes in the first inning and 10 minutes in the second. The total game took 55 minutes. It took the other team with less players roughly 33 minutes to get off the field and hit their two innings. Some games were a lot worse than that.
I am also frustrated when I teach my son about outs and the other coaches do not even pull the runners off base if we get them out. I pulled my kids because they do not like getting out and seem to run faster, but they would question me why the other team stayed on base. It is hard to tell them that I cannot control the other team and only have control over our team.
As far as friends, about a third of his team is moving up next year and he really wants to play with his cousin who is moving up. He has friends in both divisions of the league. That is the main reason I will not switch leagues because most of his friends are in this league. We got asked to play in a different league this year, but he really only knew two guys on the team and I wanted him to play with his friends.
I mainly asked the question out of frustration at this division how some of the other coaches are not prepared and my team was getting bored in the field. With the 7-8 year olds, there are three divisions and we would go in the weakest one. I watched a tournament game in that division last night and know that he could compete in that division. I am not trying to force him into being the best baseball player in this area, but I think physically and mentally he is ready to move up. I love baseball and want him to enjoy baseball and he does. I just think the 7-8 year olds play something more similar to real baseball and I think he is ready for that. Of course, I am talking about next Spring, so I can see how he does over the next nine months or so.

[tg643]

Maybe I can't relate to moving up a six year because he's being playing since he was three since I think it's ridiculous to start organized baseball that early. The game is too complex. Why do you think there's no strategy in Candyland and Chutes and Ladders? Fortunately neither of my kids wanted to play tee ball. My daughter got interested in sports the following year. My son chose to practice with his sister's 12U travel softball team than play tee ball when he was six.

Preteen baseball isn't like minor league baseball where the objective is to develop and be promoted to the next level and get to MLB as fast as possible. Preteen baseball is play. Regardless of the level of competition a kid can develop his skills. Kids do the most development practicing alone with dad. They get far more attention and reps. It's not important for a kid to get ahead of hmself. Looking back at the 144 boys we had playing 7/8's four of them played high school varsity. There are two key components of baseball development and personal development kids lose when they play up because they can survive it. They lose out on the ability to develop leadership skills and develop confidence. Without these physical skills ultimately become meaningless.

My son was the stud in his age group. Given the rec age groups are in twos, when he was the younger age he was one of the top two or three players on his team. When he was the older age he was the arguably the best player in the league. What he developed from being this good in his age group rather than surviving was a tremendous level of confidence. The confidence led to leadership skills. My son was like a coach on the field. He knew what he was doing. He performed. His teammates repected him. They listened and followed. If he were playing up and surviving this wouldn't have occured. When he was twelve I coached a former AAA player's son. He told the coach of a private high school to come watch my son in LL. He told the coach he had the instincts of a high school player. This kind of emotional development and instincts would not have occured playing up where surviving is the key. Each year my son's confidence grew and grew.

There are two major hurdles to prepare for in baseball. Playing up as a preteen does not get the player there any quicker. The first is the transition to the 60/90 field at thirteen. I've never seen a kid play up and miss their twelve year old season. That year of LL/CR is one of the most meorable a kid will enjoy. The next transition is becoming a high school player. That transition happens in 13U to 15U ball. Once again playing up as a preteen has no effect on getting there.

The only time to play up is in preteen ball. Once mastering the 60/90 field as a thirteen and fourteen year old a kid should play up to the best of his abilities to challenge himself to become a high school player. My son played 16U as a fifteen year old. The team played three non showcase 17U tournaments. As a sixteen year old he played 17/18U showcase ball. Once a kid is starting on varsity he should be playing with the best. If there's a third level it's transitioning from being a high school player to college player. But it happens for so few relative to how many play starting at six year old ball.

Looking back at 13U and 14U my son played on two top ranked travel teams. These teams were loaded with talent. If asked who were the best players I would say all of them. Due to the confidence my son built in the preteen years he believed he belonged on those teams.

My daughter started playing up in travel softball at age twelve playing 14U. But girls physically develop faster.

[tg643]

double post

[The Flush]

My son sort of played up as a 6yo. He is among the youngest in his class due to a summer birthday. He only played up in the sense that he played 8U as a 6yo while most 6yo stay in t-ball. However, most of his classmates were already 7 so he moved up to stay with his class. It was hands down the right thing for him to do. He was completely bored with t-ball to the point where he almost decided not to play baseball at all anymore. As the youngest kid in the league, he was probably in the top 1/4 of the league. He continues to play up in 10u as an 8yo and as the youngest kid in 10u remains one of the best players. In his case it was an easy choice because he was staying with his class. I know other kids who had more difficult choices in that they were "redshirted" (started school a year late) and while they are slightly older than my son, they are a year behind in school. They are of similar ability to my son and could easily handle moving up, but chose to remain in 8u. I don't blame them at all for staying with their school class. One kid's parents kept him back just so he could play on the same team as his younger brother. I do wonder if those kids are bored though.

[tg643]

My son sort of played up as a 6yo. He is among the youngest in his class due to a summer birthday. He only played up in the sense that he played 8U as a 6yo while most 6yo stay in t-ball. However, most of his classmates were already 7 so he moved up to stay with his class. It was hands down the right thing for him to do. He was completely bored with t-ball to the point where he almost decided not to play baseball at all anymore. As the youngest kid in the league, he was probably in the top 1/4 of the league. He continues to play up in 10u as an 8yo and as the youngest kid in 10u remains one of the best players. In his case it was an easy choice because he was staying with his class. I know other kids who had more difficult choices in that they were "redshirted" (started school a year late) and while they are slightly older than my son, they are a year behind in school. They are of similar ability to my son and could easily handle moving up, but chose to remain in 8u. I don't blame them at all for staying with their school class. One kid's parents kept him back just so he could play on the same team as his younger brother. I do wonder if those kids are bored though.

Our youth sports program (baseball, softball, basketball, soccer, field hockey) reviewed allowing younger kids to play up with their grade to be with their friends. With the exception of baseball (LL rules prvented this) we reviewed allowing older players in their grade to play down with their friends if we didn't feel it provided an unfair physical advantage.

[azmatsfan]

I don't see one benefit of playing up. I only see a defense of playing with kids not his age. Without a benefit I don't see why a kid shouldn't play with his classmates.

If the point of playing preteen baseball is to have fun, and if the boy is ready to play up and wants to, I'd let him. My son played up in Little League Majors (11/12) as a 10 y.o. He was probably ready at age 9, but it isn't allowed. At age 10 he was one of the best players in the Majors division. If he had played with his age group he would have been bored out of his mind. But it's all dependent upon the child. My youngest is 9. I think he'd be ready skill wise next year to move up to the Majors, but I don't think he's ready mentally or emotionally. I'll probably keep him out of the Majors draft and give him one more year to be the leader on his 9/10 team. If the boy is ready to move up and he'll have a better experience because of it, then I'd do it. If the dad is doing it so he can brag about how his son is so good he has to play up, then that's the wrong reason to do it.

[The Flush]

Our youth sports program (baseball, softball, basketball, soccer, field hockey) reviewed allowing younger kids to play up with their grade to be with their friends. With the exception of baseball (LL rules prvented this) we reviewed allowing older players in their grade to play down with their friends if we didn't feel it provided an unfair physical advantage.

I have always been baffled by the age/grade rules between some of the sports programs around here. They are all independent programs. However, I have always wondered why the baseball program went by age and the football program went by class. At young ages there can be huge differences in size within the same grade, even more so with redshirts. Size seems to be more important to football than to baseball. It seems like it would make more sense to have baseball based on grade and football based on age. My son has played flag football (blocking allowed) against kids that weigh more than twice his weight. That matters more in football than in baseball (although it sometimes helps in baseball too).

[CircleChange11]

Maybe I can't relate to moving up a six year because he's being playing since he was three since I think it's ridiculous to start organized baseball that early. The game is too complex. Why do you think there's no strategy in Candyland and Chutes and Ladders? Fortunately neither of my kids wanted to play tee ball. My daughter got interested in sports the following year. My son chose to practice with his sister's 12U travel softball team than play tee ball when he was six.

I'll say that the "game" that 7/8yo's play is not the "same" game that they play in HS.

The "game" that 10U plays is not the same game that they play in HS.

We're (10U) encountering some teams that will show bunt with runners on 1st and 2nd to draw the 3B in so they can steal 3rd behind them. We've practiced 3 different bunt plays to deal with this as well as training the SS to "cover 3rd". But, this is a rare occurrence. IMO, it happened to us because our catcher was catching everything and blocking balls in the dirt.

The "strategy" involved in 7-10 baseball is greatly exaggerated, IMO. What strategy exists at these levels (namely baserunning) doesn;t necessarily transfer to the HS game.

Preteen baseball isn't like minor league baseball where the objective is to develop and be promoted to the next level and get to MLB as fast as possible. Preteen baseball is play.

Acknowledging that it is play, I would say the focus at this level should be [1] skill development first and foremost, [2] gaining experience playing different posiitons, [3] learning general fundamentals and strategy of the game (as well as rules).

Regardless of the level of competition a kid can develop his skills. Kids do the most development practicing alone with dad. They get far more attention and reps.

Here's where I'll disagree some. One of the most challenging things about baseball is hitting. One of the most challenging aspects of hitting is timing. When a talented player has to slow down everything or slow down his timing from where he's more comfortable playing or from where player and dad practice, it becomes an obstacle ... and can become a threat to confidence.

It's not important for a kid to get ahead of himself.

Aren;t we discussing a player playing at his ability level, rather than his date of birth?

My son was the stud in his age group. Given the rec age groups are in twos, when he was the younger age he was one of the top two or three players on his team. When he was the older age he was the arguably the best player in the league. What he developed from being this good in his age group rather than surviving was a tremendous level of confidence. The confidence led to leadership skills. My son was like a coach on the field. He knew what he was doing. He performed. His teammates repected him. They listened and followed. If he were playing up and surviving this wouldn't have occured. When he was twelve I coached a former AAA player's son. He told the coach of a private high school to come watch my son in LL. He told the coach he had the instincts of a high school player. This kind of emotional development and instincts would not have occured playing up where surviving is the key. Each year my son's confidence grew and grew.

Here's another example. My son;s birthday is 6 days after the "age cutoff". What this means for us is that the first year of a new league he competes well with the second year players as a first year player. The following season, they move up and he completely obliterates the league the next year. Now, as a coach, I could easily capitalize on this and use him to win the title each year if that was the primary goal. It's not. I would strongly prefer for him to play against players at his ability level so he has to be challenged and learn "how to play" rather than just out-talenting or out-bigging everyone. Throwing no-hitters with 13+ K's while throwing nothing but fastballs really doesn't develop anyone. The "local celebrity" stuff wears off rather quickly. It can also create a false sense of confidence as to where the player's real ability or talent level is.

I'm not necessarily arguing for "playing up", as there are drawbacks. But, I am arguing for ability level grouping. I pretty much argue for ability level grouping at every activity. Basing things on age, when we know that kids within an age group vary wildly on almost every characteristic is a dumb thing to do.

We only consider it "playing up" because we're conditioned to viewing these as "age based". If our tradition was to ability group, there'd be no such thing as "playing up", there'd just be "playing at your appropriate level" ... and we wouldn't think twice about it.

It would be the same thing at schools. If a second grader was reading at the 5th grade level, they would go to the classroom that taught reading at the 5th grade level. If that same student needed 3rd grade math, that would simply go to the classroom where they received 3rd grade level math instruction. Obviously, there'd be different names such as "math 3" or "reading 5" or whatever, but it wouldn't be a big deal. It would simply be "giving each kid what they need". Example: My 5th grade son reads at the 8th grade level. He has classmates that read at the 2nd grade level. Why good reason is there for either of these students to receive 5th grade reading instruction. It's inappropriate for either one.

I try to set aside the issue of the adults feeling good about their kid "playing up" and simply look at "what level will the player be appropriately challenged?" I do the same thing with under-developed and new to baseball playing 12yo's that are being dominated by 12yo that have played since they were 4. The ONLY reason we place these kids together is their age, which is dumb.

[leecemark]

--There is no perfect answer to this question. There are multiple ages for each level in our area and for the first 3 it is completely up to the parent whether the kid plays lower or higher within the age grouping. Tee ball is for 5-6, coach pitch for 6-8 and a kid/coach mix for 7-9 (no walks, so coach takes over after 4 balls). Nine year olds can try out for 9-11 full kid pitch, although they don't have to. For most kids the most "leveling up" they probably ought to do is playing at the youngest eligible age in the next level rather than sticking around for their oldest eligible year at the other.

[tg643]

The easiest answer buried in my long explaination is since playing up in the preteen years doesn't get sa kid to the 60/90 field any sooner why not just play with friends instead of playing up? It's a game.

Circle, you completely ignored the two main points of my post, developing confidence and leadership skills. No one is going to follow the younger kid playing up. Preteen kids develop more confidence starring in their age group than surviving the next level up. I believe you're taking something valuable away from a kid playing him up rather than letting him star at eight and ten.

[JCincy]

Circle, you completely ignored the two main points of my post, developing confidence and leadership skills. No one is going to follow the younger kid playing up. Preteen kids develop more confidence starring in their age group than surviving the next level up.

You have to be older than your peers to lead and have confidence? Really?
Sigh...

[shake-n-bake]

I saw an advantage to playing up for my son. His case is a bit different in that there's been less choice. If he wanted to play with his closest friends, the one's in his grade, he had to play beyond his age at times. He took that a bit further at times and there was a benefit of greater confidence and self image when he was playing above both his age and his grade.

Without a doubt though, there's risk and there's trade off that might not be for every kid. Some kids need the self assurance of being the big fish in the small pond or at least having a healthy dose of star moments. That, you're not going to get on any sort of consistent basis. Also, there's more mental toughness needed to see beyond either not being "THE" star or even struggling at times. Takes some maturity and perspective and trust in parents and coaches when they say your time will come. The same kid that has those sort of qualities will find satisfaction in smaller contributions and feel pride in being part of something they feel to be a bigger deal.

What's not realized is that there's another downside. Most of the time a kid temporarily runs out of chances to play up for a season. Success then seems to come rather easy. Once again hopefully the maturity that allowed them to have a good experience playing up will prevail here as well.

[leecemark]

--I agree that being a senior player at your level has many benefits, including the opportunity to develop confidence and leadership. I have one player on my team who is clearly more talented than everybody else - and he is not even at the oldest eligible age (8 in a 7-9). He got a little frustrated early with his teammates not playing up to his level or grasping the game as well as he does. I encourged him to be a leader on the field and help those teamates and he has responded well to that, to his and the teams betterment. I think he is better off for not getting an exception to move up, even though he could have held his own vs 9-11 year olds. I will definately encourage him to move up next year though. Repeating a level you've already dominated at has diminishing returns for the player and is unfair to opposing players.

[CircleChange11]

Circle, you completely ignored the two main points of my post, developing confidence and leadership skills. No one is going to follow the younger kid playing up. Preteen kids develop more confidence starring in their age group than surviving the next level up. I believe you're taking something valuable away from a kid playing him up rather than letting him star at eight and ten.

In my humble opinion (and it's an educated one in this particular area), asking a talented kid to "play down" from his talent level in order to "demonstrate/learn leadership" is asking a kid to do something most people/adults can't/won't do.

I spoke to a child psychiatrist about this type of scenario and what she told me is that often times the talented kids end up forming more resentment toward the teammates because every one of their mistakes makes it harder for the talented kid to "win the game for their team", and let's not fool ourselves ... the expectation (spoken or otherwise) is that the talented kid wins the game for the team, sometimes single-handedly.

I called the psychiatrist because I knew here informally and my son was starting to display some attitudes that I was not particularly fond of ... such as raising his hands (What?) or slapping his glove when teammates would miss routine balls that his older, travel teammates would make easily.

Of course I let him have it for "showing up his teammates", but afterwards started thinking of just what a 10yo should be expected to handle "calmly, rationally, and with patience and empathy?" I think, for many kids, that's asking for far too much. That area of the brain isn't even developed yet. Kids are emotion-based and will react as so. If you put a young, talented kid in a frustrating situation, the most reasonable expectation would be for them to continually display frustration.

How many of us, as adults, working a job where we perform much higher than our peers, invest more time in helping our peers improve so not as much pressure is on to carry the load versus simply just finding a better job where the peers perform higher? Going by the comments of many adults, quite a few seem to be very frustrated with their co-workers that don't "carry their load" and "rely on others to be successful".

We can say lots of stuff about leadership and things of that nature, but the larger question is whether the kids are capable of it. The same kid from this post is a "helper" in the classroom where he listens to other kids read and helps them get better. He loves that. But there's not a crowd of people around watching him "fail" (runs score via errors) and expecting him to "win" in the classroom as well.

I think many times, adults say one thing and with their actions mean another. IMO, it only gets worse as the kids age and opponents start to trash talk.

[mudvnine]

If he had played with his age group he would have been bored out of his mind.

I have read this quote (or ones very similar) here about young baseball players, and just help but wonder if that's truly the opinion of the young players, or simply that of their well-meaning parents.

Now this is way less than scientific, but remembering back to my youth, we had kids playing at all levels, and especially those "pick up" games on the street, where some most were well below the skill level of my buddy and myself, but we all played for hours on end having an absolute blast.....even when we were 13 and 14 (although admittedly, those "street" game at that age were held quite a bit less often).

I don't know, to me it seems that if a kid is "bored" during a baseball game....any baseball game, then maybe, baseball is the wrong sport for him/her.

Anyone think this "kid" was bored even playing here??



Baseball is what you make of it, I/we've had some of the most fun playing in the "pick up" games around the park with many lesser (even "unskilled") players....in between, or after our regular "competitive" game(s), than I/we've had in some of our supposed "elite" level games.

As far as "playing up".....IMO, it speaks as much to the egos and bragging rights of the parents, as it really does to the "need", of a particular "overly talented" youth player to actually be there.

Again, JMO....YMMV,
mud -

[shake-n-bake]

The easiest answer buried in my long explaination is since playing up in the preteen years doesn't get sa kid to the 60/90 field any sooner why not just play with friends instead of playing up? It's a game.

Circle, you completely ignored the two main points of my post, developing confidence and leadership skills. No one is going to follow the younger kid playing up. Preteen kids develop more confidence starring in their age group than surviving the next level up. I believe you're taking something valuable away from a kid playing him up rather than letting him star at eight and ten.

Not true. I think you make a good argument for why playing up isn't for some kids. However, the ones that make that successful leap do so because they have a special mental makeup (in addition to enough skill and physical maturity too).

My son's HS coach in a one on one meeting listing his positive attributes said to him that his leadership was his best skill. He's right, and thing is he's probably the youngest kid in the entire school. I don't think when he was 8 playing 12u that he was a leader, but he wasn't just surviving either. I remember him feeling good about what he brought to the table. Like I said earlier, he kept showing up in uniform even with a cast on his arm. Part of the reasoning was that he felt like he could still contribute and it wasn't going to be on the field.

[CircleChange11]

mudnine,

This is a GREAT commentary that needs further discussion.

My player would not be bored. He would be having a blast striking everyone out and possibly going the whole season without allowing a hit. Batting might be frustrating because he rarely sees a strike, but when he did hit the ball chances are he'd be able to just run and run without worry.

It would be fun. If fun were the only goal, then that would be the spot for HIM. Of course, that's only considering HIM (and his mom and aunt, who cheer loudly). How much fun is it for EVERYONE ELSE (caps for emphasis, not yelling)?

Part of the goal for youth baseball is developing skills and to respond favorably to challenges (improve through practice and effort).

If a kid "plays up" and is just overwhelmed and extremely unsuccessful, are the parents still gong to boast about their kid "playing up"? Will they move him up again?

In my experience, most kids moving up are talented and mature enough to do so. Those that want them to "stay down" usually prefer so for competitive reasons (With his talent at this age we could easily win districts. If he moves up he won't be as dominant!"

Won't some parents keep their kids down just for the easy dominance (i.e., their kid gets to be the tallest midget)?

I don't think we should make "general" statements, without data, as to why parents have their kids play up or down. Some will play up for the bragging, some will play down for the bragging. Regardless, there are always adults that will like it or not like it. I ignore the adults and try to what's best for the kid(s).

[CircleChange11]

We also need to define "leadership". My son is more comfortable in high pressure sports situations than he is in social settings.

He practices very hard, but doesn't want to be the example. He'll take a walk if it's the right move as opposed to swinging away trying to be the hero and end up making an out. He will do all the baseball things pretty much how you want him to. But, he's not going to be very vocal. It's why he likes playing with the older kids. He gets to just "be really good" without having to be "the example" or the leader.

As I've said before, it's frustrating to me, because I'd prefer him to be a "grab the world by the balls" type of leader, but it's not him. He is perfectly fine with just being really talented and just being a guy on the team.

I think we might be placing adult thoughts and emotions in the bodies of kids.

I also think we attribute too much leadership to being vocal or effort and things of that nature ... things that *could* be faked.

[shake-n-bake]

Circle, good observation. And, that's why "red shirting" is equally as much a goal of parents as having them play up.


You are right. It is about the kid, and as most of my comments go - I don't think its necessarily about development. There's a mental make up in some kids that has them wanting to be part of something bigger regardless if they are the superstar. There's other kids I assume that really want to be the star. Because so many kids only play until maybe 12, I don't see anything wrong with that. I think we just like to see mom and dad helping make the choices based on their assessment of the kid's needs and not their own desires.

[AdamInNY]

Aren't a large percentage of major players born between 5/1 and 8/1? I believe this was discussed in Gladwell's book, Outliers. The though being that these kids were the older kids in the respective divisions and at such an early age a 6m - 1 y can be huge in physical development. So these kids were better, stood out, made all star teams, got better instruction, etc.

Adam

[JCincy]

Now this is way less than scientific, but remembering back to my youth, we had kids playing at all levels, and especially those "pick up" games on the street, where some most were well below the skill level of my buddy and myself, but we all played for hours on end having an absolute blast.....even when we were 13 and 14 (although admittedly, those "street" game at that age were held quite a bit less often).

In our street ball games we tailored the game to the players. I imagine you did the same?
Example: Did you pitch the same to your friend as to the 8 year old? Do you give time him to run to first to make it a close play or was it all about crushing the little guys?

[shake-n-bake]

We also need to define "leadership". My son is more comfortable in high pressure sports situations than he is in social settings.

He practices very hard, but doesn't want to be the example. He'll take a walk if it's the right move as opposed to swinging away trying to be the hero and end up making an out. He will do all the baseball things pretty much how you want him to. But, he's not going to be very vocal. It's why he likes playing with the older kids. He gets to just "be really good" without having to be "the example" or the leader.

As I've said before, it's frustrating to me, because I'd prefer him to be a "grab the world by the balls" type of leader, but it's not him. He is perfectly fine with just being really talented and just being a guy on the team.

I think we might be placing adult thoughts and emotions in the bodies of kids.

I also think we attribute too much leadership to being vocal or effort and things of that nature ... things that *could* be faked.

Leadership is way more than being rah, rah, and vocal. I wouldn't put much stock or take much pride in having someone that wasn't a credible evaluator of leadership handing out the tag.

You can look at a kid on the field and in the dugout and know that's the kid that who goes 1 on 13 at a team overnight party to stick up for a teammate being hazed because it's worth going out on that ledge to be the guy that models what's right - dam the consequences because that kid doesn't think in terms of being scared of consequences just then. You see the kid wearing a t-shirt that says..."I'm That Dude" and it doesn't seem conceited or cocky. You just think, "yup - he is."

[mudvnine]

mudnine,

This is a GREAT commentary that needs further discussion.

My player would not be bored. He would be having a blast striking everyone out and possibly going the whole season without allowing a hit. Batting might be frustrating because he rarely sees a strike, but when he did hit the ball chances are he'd be able to just run and run without worry.

It would be fun. If fun were the only goal, then that would be the spot for HIM. Of course, that's only considering HIM (and his mom and aunt, who cheer loudly). How much fun is it for EVERYONE ELSE (caps for emphasis, not yelling)?

Part of the goal for youth baseball is developing skills and to respond favorably to challenges (improve through practice and effort).

If a kid "plays up" and is just overwhelmed and extremely unsuccessful, are the parents still gong to boast about their kid "playing up"? Will they move him up again?

In my experience, most kids moving up are talented and mature enough to do so. Those that want them to "stay down" usually prefer so for competitive reasons (With his talent at this age we could easily win districts. If he moves up he won't be as dominant!"

Won't some parents keep their kids down just for the easy dominance (i.e., their kid gets to be the tallest midget)?

I don't think we should make "general" statements, without data, as to why parents have their kids play up or down. Some will play up for the bragging, some will play down for the bragging. Regardless, there are always adults that will like it or not like it. I ignore the adults and try to what's best for the kid(s).

Circle, your points are well received and very valid....for the type of player that you describe.

With that said, I have no problem with the league (or TB organization) placing a kid in an upper age level/division for the safety and/or possibly competitive fairness (I say "possibly", as I think we both know that no player dominates a division or age group as you describe) reasons....

But I don't believe that a parent, thinking their kid will become "bored" at a particular level of competition, is a valid justification for the jump to "playing up" at the next level.

And I agree, I did "make "general" statements, without data", and why I made sure that it was clear at the end of my post...that that was strictly "just my opinion" and that others' or "your, mileage may vary".


mud -