Dazzling pitching performance

[scorekeeper]

Seeing that Cliff Lee put up K:BB ratios that are so rare as to be historical, he's not a good example. In 2010, his K:BB was over 10 which is so gawdy one has to chuckle at it. Cliff Lee is a tremendously interesting example in that in 2005 he basically decided (or made mechanical adjustments) to stop walking batters.

His BABIP is .295, right in the average range. So even, uber-control Cliff Lee doesn't supress BABIP. He thrives by walking far fewer than league average. He hasn't been above 2.0 BB/9 since 2006 (league average is around 3/1 BB/9). His HR rate is much below league average which makes him about twice as valuable in a FIP-based value system as opposed to a Runs Allowed value system.

Someday I hope he writes a book on what exactly he did to turn his career completely around.

I’m not quite understanding what getting hits has to do with anything. Yes you have to hit the ball to get a base hit, but whether or not it’s a base hit, the ball has still been hit.

The point is ... it's not about getting batters to "hit the ball", it's about "not walking them". Not walking them is THE skill. Getting them to hit the ball ISN'T.

Well, I certainly believe walking or hitting batters is a bad thing, but the more strikes thrown, the fewer walks are possible. And if a pitcher can get rid of a batter without getting into a 3 ball count, a walk is impossible. One thing I have my program track is 3 ball counts. I’ve noticed that the teams who’d pitchers stay out of 3 ball counts, which can also be expressed as pitching to contact, sure seem to be the most successful on a game by game basis. I haven’t run any numbers to prove/disprove that, but I’m watching that pretty closely during games, and a high number of 3 ball counts usually is ties to problems.

And it seem that that holds true no matter what the level. Take a look at the link. Doc3.pdf

The top game was the StL/Cle game yesterday, the middle game was out team’s final playoff game, and the bottom one was a random LLI Majors game I score a few weeks back. See if you can tell which team won/lost based on nothing but those pictures.

IO sure as heck wouldn't use BA at the HS or youth levels, not given the disparity in scorekeeper and defense quality. What's an error and what's a hit is highly dependent, as is the disparity in team defense.

Heck, college and pro ball isn’t immune from scorer deficiencies, which is why personally I like to see RBAs(Reached Base Averages) that include all PAs and treat reaching base in any manner as a positive.

Since walks at youth levels are so valuable, OBP should be king of youth baseball.

Free passes are valuable at any level because there is no defense against them, other than to have the pitcher throw more strikes.

Same here. My overall intent is to get people to look at the situation and not see "allowing batters to hit the ball" as being a "good skill". It's not for the vast majority of pitchers., plus many of them aren't doing it by choice. But, it's the lack of walks that is the real benefit.

It almost sounds like you advocate throwing lots of pitches in an attempt to keep the bat batters from hitting the ball. Sounds bass ackwards to what the current philosophy is, where its to conserve pitches by getting the batter out by hitting the ball.

Which is preferable? A pitcher gives up 3 walks to 3 leadoff batters or 3 singles to 3 leadoff batters.

[cps]

I’m not quite understanding what getting hits has to do with anything. Yes you have to hit the ball to get a base hit, but whether or not it’s a base hit, the ball has still been hit.



Well, I certainly believe walking or hitting batters is a bad thing, but the more strikes thrown, the fewer walks are possible. And if a pitcher can get rid of a batter without getting into a 3 ball count, a walk is impossible. One thing I have my program track is 3 ball counts. I’ve noticed that the teams who’d pitchers stay out of 3 ball counts, which can also be expressed as pitching to contact, sure seem to be the most successful on a game by game basis. I haven’t run any numbers to prove/disprove that, but I’m watching that pretty closely during games, and a high number of 3 ball counts usually is ties to problems.

And it seem that that holds true no matter what the level. Take a look at the link. Doc3.pdf

The top game was the StL/Cle game yesterday, the middle game was out team’s final playoff game, and the bottom one was a random LLI Majors game I score a few weeks back. See if you can tell which team won/lost based on nothing but those pictures.



Heck, college and pro ball isn’t immune from scorer deficiencies, which is why personally I like to see RBAs(Reached Base Averages) that include all PAs and treat reaching base in any manner as a positive.



Free passes are valuable at any level because there is no defense against them, other than to have the pitcher throw more strikes.



It almost sounds like you advocate throwing lots of pitches in an attempt to keep the bat batters from hitting the ball. Sounds bass ackwards to what the current philosophy is, where its to conserve pitches by getting the batter out by hitting the ball.

Which is preferable? A pitcher gives up 3 walks to 3 leadoff batters or 3 singles to 3 leadoff batters.

I like the idea of RBA…even in the MLB, how many speedy runners reach on error due the extra pressure they put on a fielder trying to make a play?

[scorekeeper]

I like the idea of RBA…even in the MLB, how many speedy runners reach on error due the extra pressure they put on a fielder trying to make a play?

I like it too, but for different reasons. I get pretty sick and tired of people complaining about how lousy so many SK’s are, then throw away perfectly useable data because hits and errors may not be valid. That’s so ridiculous, its asinine. What the difference between a ball the F4 grabs and throws out the batter, or if it was 6” further away or the F4 slipped just the slightest? A hit is very often blind luck, while a smash is very often nothing but an out.

So to me, during a game, the real test is whether or not the hitter reaches base because I don’t care how that happens for the most part. Now if I’m trying to figger out my lineup for a game, that’s something different because it’s a different perspective. So I might use RBA to make sure I have a guy leading off who historically has the best chance of reaching, but other things would have to come into play for say the cleanup spot.

[bbrages]

The top game was the StL/Cle game yesterday

I didn't see the game, and I don't understand your document, but looking at the recap, it looks like Kelly (starting for the Cards) did a good job of pitching to contact, but was let down by Motte in the top of the 9th.

Interestingly (?) the Cardinals had a golden opportunity with bases loaded, two out, in the bottom of the 8th. This opportunity was set up three straight walks! But then the next two Cardinals struck out! So there was a big chunk of pitching that was not "to contact"!

What did you think?

[CircleChange11]

Well, I certainly believe walking or hitting batters is a bad thing, but the more strikes thrown, the fewer walks are possible. And if a pitcher can get rid of a batter without getting into a 3 ball count, a walk is impossible. One thing I have my program track is 3 ball counts. I’ve noticed that the teams who’d pitchers stay out of 3 ball counts, which can also be expressed as pitching to contact, sure seem to be the most successful on a game by game basis. I haven’t run any numbers to prove/disprove that, but I’m watching that pretty closely during games, and a high number of 3 ball counts usually is ties to problems.

My #1 stat for youth pitching is strike %. Whether the pitcher is a K guy or not, throwing strikes is the most important thing with youth pitching.

But, here's what I am getting at ... our #1 pitcher in terms of strike % is a kid that throws 68% strikes. It's the highest I've seen for a pitcher on our team or that has faced us. He K's ~2 batters per IP. Would we consider that "pitching to contact" or not?

We have a couple of guys that throw with good velocity, but lack control. We have a few other guys that have good control but lack velocity. We've been pitching the guys with good control more often because the walks just hurt so much at this level, especially when combined with PB and WP that allow runners to score from 3rd. Against teams that hit well, the lower velocity guys get hammered, as characterized by many hard hit balls to the OF. I'd rather take my chances with these guys, then the pitchers that are allowing walks, SB, WP, and PB leading to a similar amount of runs.

My point has been that the lower velocity kids and the 2K/IP kid don't have "separate skills" in regards to throwing strikes. They all just "throw strikes". What separates the "contact" aspect is velocity, which would be an ability not a skill.

Throwing strikes (control) is the skill. Accuracy would be the fancy name.

Heck, college and pro ball isn’t immune from scorer deficiencies, which is why personally I like to see RBAs(Reached Base Averages) that include all PAs and treat reaching base in any manner as a positive.

We think alike in a lot of areas, and this is one of them. I keep track of a lot of things, but emphasize only a few. I emphasize [1] OBP (for obvious reasons, recognition of the strike zone being a very important skill), [2] % of time reached base (I include reached on errors and HBP), and [3] hard hit balls (again, also a skill). I do this because I try to bunch my hitters that are always on base with those that often hit the ball hard.

I have a player that has a very low BA, but a very high "reached base %". In 20 games he has 16 walks and 6 times reached by error. He has a good eye and rabbit's foot in his back pocket. I don;t try and figure out his "true talent', but rather just be thankful that he gets on base (since hitting the ball with authority is not a strong suit of his).

It almost sounds like you advocate throwing lots of pitches in an attempt to keep the bat batters from hitting the ball. Sounds bass ackwards to what the current philosophy is, where its to conserve pitches by getting the batter out by hitting the ball.

Not at all. My preference would be 70%+ first pitch strikes. If a batter gets a hit on one pitch, I'll take it. If they make an out on the 1st pitch, I love it. If he takes strike one, I love it.

With 2 strikes, our emphasis changes from "trying to get a BIP" to "trying to get a K". On 0-2 I have our C set up to where his inside knee is just outside of the outside corner. We are trying to get a "chase swing". If the batter makes contact, he had better reached for it. On 1-2 we move to where the outside corner is "between the catcher's knees" and we get lots of looking K's on this because the batter thinks it's still "outside".

I don;t like high pitch counts at all. It hurts the team overall, especially when limited pitchers are available, like in a tournament setting.

Which is preferable? A pitcher gives up 3 walks to 3 leadoff batters or 3 singles to 3 leadoff batters.

I don;t like walks at all, so that's an easy answer for me. Like I said "the batter has to hit the fence to get on base" is our mantra. I want our pitchers to challenge the hitters, not just to "make them earn it", but more importantly because if you can;t throw strikes, you can't pitch and I am primarily interested in "teaching pitching". If a pitcher can throw strikes, he will likely get even better once we get to the ages where curveballs, cutters, changeups, etc ... because they will likely be able to throw those for strikes as well. The young pitchers that are wild, better hope that they have high velocity in HS, or they'll soon find that they are no longer pitchers.

[scorekeeper]

I didn't see the game, and I don't understand your document, but looking at the recap, it looks like Kelly (starting for the Cards) did a good job of pitching to contact, but was let down by Motte in the top of the 9th.

I suppose I should have given a detailed explanation of what was there, but I was hoping the pictures along with the thread’s general direction would let everyone understand that they were seeing a much more in depth pitching snapshot of 3 games than they could see in a recap in the paper.

I could have gone back and show just what any of the pitchers did or what things looked like at any point in the game, but I was trying to give an overall picture of what took place to show that there are ways to tell what’s going on and what’s going on often gives an indication of which team is “succeeding”.

There is a general layout to the form each of those pictures showed. There are basically 4 columns of data. The column on the left represents the visiting pitcher currently in the game. The one next to it on the right represents all the visiting pitchers, The next one over represents the home pitchers, and the one furthest to the right, the current home pitcher, and those column go all the way to the bottom.

So in the top one that represents Cleveland, looking at the totals for all the pitchers, you can see that both teams had virtually the same number of 0-2 counts. So when you put that together with the number of batters, you see that the St Louis pitchers got to 0-2 on 7 of 41 batters, or about 17%, and they got into 3 ball counts on 12 batters, or about 29%. The “balls/strikes in the dirt” things are something I threw in because of my curiosity about how often that happens, and it sometimes happens quite a lot.

Double/triple balls and strikes are fairly simple to understand once you know what they are. They only pertain to the same batter, and happen when there are 2/3 balls or strikes thrown in a row. Every once in a while interesting things show up like that middle picture which represents our final HS playoff game. Both staffs threw the same number of double strikes and balls. But if you look at the 1st pic, you can see St Louis pitchers generally weren’t throwing the ball for strikes the same way the Indians were, and when you look at the triple balls/strikes, it shows up even more, and the same things can be seen in the bottom pic with the 2 LL teams.

The pitches thrown relative to the count is becoming something I can look at and trust it will be a pretty good reflection of the kind of day the pitcher’s having. Since most pitches will be thrown in an even count, if they’re a high percentage of balls or strikes, it pretty much tells what’s happening. If you look, you’ll see both ML teams threw pretty much the same in even counts, but in the HS and especially the LL game, its pretty simple to see which team’s pitchers were “struggling”.

That thing, along with several other metrics I have access to during a game help me shape the way I think about what’s actually happening as opposed to what people THINK is happening, and make decisions based on what they think. I realize that not everyone has access to that kind if detailed information during a game or even after, but that doesn’t mean its worthless or isn’t true.

Interestingly (?) the Cardinals had a golden opportunity with bases loaded, two out, in the bottom of the 8th. This opportunity was set up three straight walks! But then the next two Cardinals struck out! So there was a big chunk of pitching that was not "to contact"!

What did you think?

Its very different when you sit there scoring a game while looking at the things I have to look at, and looking at a game recap without the benefit of having see what took place. Yes, the Card did have a golden opportunity and there wasn’t a lot of pitching to contact going on, but that’s pretty much Pestano’s style. Historically he’s a here it is, let’s see if you can hit it kinda guy, with not electric stuff, but pretty darn good stuff, so while it was unusual that he walked those guys, it wasn’t at all unusual that he got out of it with Ks.

What was much more impressive was Ubaldo. He’s been as wild as a March hare since he’s come to the Tribe, but the last 2 outings were definitely a change for the better. He didn’t walk even 1 batter in that game, and where normally he’s been at 100 pitches in the 5th, this game he was going strong with only 102 after 7. So even with his 7 Ks, only 2 of which were called, he was definitely getting batters out of the box pretty well by getting them to swing.

[scorekeeper]

My #1 stat for youth pitching is strike %. Whether the pitcher is a K guy or not, throwing strikes is the most important thing with youth pitching.

I don’t know if I’d say “throwing strikes”, in the sense of throwing pitches in the strike zone was the most important thing in youth pitching, but I’d certainly agree that keeping the ball somewhat near the strike zone is, so there’s at least a chance of it being called or swung at.

But, here's what I am getting at ... our #1 pitcher in terms of strike % is a kid that throws 68% strikes. It's the highest I've seen for a pitcher on our team or that has faced us. He K's ~2 batters per IP. Would we consider that "pitching to contact" or not?

I wouldn’t. But what difference does it make? You’ve already noted that he’s an aberration(in a good way).

We have a couple of guys that throw with good velocity, but lack control. We have a few other guys that have good control but lack velocity. We've been pitching the guys with good control more often because the walks just hurt so much at this level, especially when combined with PB and WP that allow runners to score from 3rd. Against teams that hit well, the lower velocity guys get hammered, as characterized by many hard hit balls to the OF. I'd rather take my chances with these guys, then the pitchers that are allowing walks, SB, WP, and PB leading to a similar amount of runs.

I agree that the odds are on your side to sacrifice pitchers getting “hammered” for fewer free passes, although I’d question the “getting hammered” description without some numbers to back it up.

I certainly hope that your approach is what we’ll be seeing a lot more of, rather than the “teach ‘em to throw hard right away and don’t worry about the control”, mantra that has been the dominating philosophy for a long time now.

My point has been that the lower velocity kids and the 2K/IP kid don't have "separate skills" in regards to throwing strikes. They all just "throw strikes". What separates the "contact" aspect is velocity, which would be an ability not a skill.

I honestly don’t know whether velocity is only or even main component in what makes hitters miss as opposed to making contact, but I seriously doubt it. “Relative” velocity maybe, but not velocity in and of itself.

Throwing strikes (control) is the skill. Accuracy would be the fancy name.

I don’t think “control” is analogous to throwing strikes, and I don’t think accuracy should be measured in strike percentage. Strike percentage measures strikes, not control, and they often are 2 very different things. I’ve attached something I now run as part of the stat “package”. pitchtypes.pdf

The 1st page and the 3rd are all the pitched segregated by their “type” and ordered by the ball percentage. The 2nd and the 4th page are only called pitches and ordered by the percentage of called pitches to all pitches. In essence, that’s the only way I’d allow a percentage of pitches to determine whether they were “pitching to contact or not”. The lower the percentage of called pitches, the more the pitcher was a “contact” pitcher.

I feel bad that I only have 1 years worth of data to look at for that metric, but there’s nothing I can do about it. However, if you go to http://www.infosports.com/scorekeepe...supitching.pdf and do a find on “pitchkinds1”, you’ll see the results of the summer games so far. You’ll notice that there are 3 pitchers common to both lists. Stafford, Jemes, and Gomez. You should also notice that they are in relatively the same positions as to whether or not they’d thrown to contact.

Stafford and Gomez will be JRs this year, so its gonna be interesting to me to see either one changes.

We think alike in a lot of areas, and this is one of them. I keep track of a lot of things, but emphasize only a few. I emphasize [1] OBP (for obvious reasons, recognition of the strike zone being a very important skill), [2] % of time reached base (I include reached on errors and HBP), and [3] hard hit balls (again, also a skill). I do this because I try to bunch my hitters that are always on base with those that often hit the ball hard.

Great minds often ….

I only have minor differences. I’d include ROFCs too, and I’m always a bit leery of tracking something as objective as a “hard hit ball”. Now if you’re the only guy making that judgment, its ok, but if its someone else or different people making the judgment, I’d have a problem with it.

I have a player that has a very low BA, but a very high "reached base %". In 20 games he has 16 walks and 6 times reached by error. He has a good eye and rabbit's foot in his back pocket. I don;t try and figure out his "true talent', but rather just be thankful that he gets on base (since hitting the ball with authority is not a strong suit of his).

I totally understand, but wouldn’t it make a bit more sense to try to define that “talent” so it could perhaps be taught to others?

Not at all. My preference would be 70%+ first pitch strikes. If a batter gets a hit on one pitch, I'll take it. If they make an out on the 1st pitch, I love it. If he takes strike one, I love it.

We’re in total agreement on that.

With 2 strikes, our emphasis changes from "trying to get a BIP" to "trying to get a K". On 0-2 I have our C set up to where his inside knee is just outside of the outside corner. We are trying to get a "chase swing". If the batter makes contact, he had better reached for it. On 1-2 we move to where the outside corner is "between the catcher's knees" and we get lots of looking K's on this because the batter thinks it's still "outside".

I have no problem with trying to get a K as opposed to a BIP because I’m looking for the out, no matter what form its in. The only thing I question, is being extraordinarily careful, not to let “nibbling” cause problems. I like your approach much more than a “waste” pitch, but I question the ability of pitchers at the HS level to pull off what you’re saying on a regular basis, let alone pitchers at levels lower than that. Its not the there aren’t some who could do it, and it’s alright as a goal, but its just not “normal” in my experience.

I don;t like high pitch counts at all. It hurts the team overall, especially when limited pitchers are available, like in a tournament setting.

I understand what you’re saying and agree, but I’d much rather not see so many situations where pitching is so “stressed”, like in tournament settings.

I don;t like walks at all, so that's an easy answer for me. Like I said "the batter has to hit the fence to get on base" is our mantra. I want our pitchers to challenge the hitters, not just to "make them earn it", but more importantly because if you can;t throw strikes, you can't pitch and I am primarily interested in "teaching pitching". If a pitcher can throw strikes, he will likely get even better once we get to the ages where curveballs, cutters, changeups, etc ... because they will likely be able to throw those for strikes as well. The young pitchers that are wild, better hope that they have high velocity in HS, or they'll soon find that they are no longer pitchers.

Again, we agree in concept, but its unfortunate that I have to add something else to what you said about having the velocity in HS if not the ability to get the ball around the plate. I don’t know about a Fr or JV team so much, but I find that if a player has been a pitcher in the past, such as on the Fr or JV team, of he has exceptional “stature” he will almost always get more opportunities.

[CircleChange11]

I don’t know if I’d say “throwing strikes”, in the sense of throwing pitches in the strike zone was the most important thing in youth pitching, but I’d certainly agree that keeping the ball somewhat near the strike zone is, so there’s at least a chance of it being called or swung at.

At the youth ages, IMO, it's pretty much the same thing. We're basically talking about throwing a ball through a hula hoop, even if it means that at the periphery it's an inch or two off the actual strike zone.

I wouldn’t. But what difference does it make?

My point was that he and the "pitch to contact" pitcher pitch very similarly, but would be in two different categories. Basically, he fits the "description" of the pitch to contact guy, except he throws hard enough to be too quick for lots of hitters. Not having velocity isn't a skill.

I agree that the odds are on your side to sacrifice pitchers getting “hammered” for fewer free passes, although I’d question the “getting hammered” description without some numbers to back it up.

PITCHER 1 --- 1.3 H/IP - 0.8 BB/IP - 1.2 K/IP - 2.1 WHIP
PITCHER 2 --- 2.0 H/IP - 0.6 BB/IP - 0.9 K/IP - 2.6 WHIP
PITCHER 3 --- 1.4 H/IP - 1.7 BB/IP - 0.9 K/IP - 3.1 WHIP
PITCHER 4 --- 2.1 H/IP - 1.1 BB/IP - 0.8 K/IP - 3.3 WHIP
PITCHER 5 --- 2.4 H/IP - 0.8 BB/IP - 0.3 K/IP - 3.2 WHIP

PITCHER 6 --- 1.5 H/IP - 0.5 BB/IP - 1.8 K/IP - 2.0 WHIP

Pitchers 4 & 5 have taken a good portion of Pitcher 3's innings. Pitcher 2 is a good pitcher that would have pitched more often had he not always pitched in rec league right before our TB games. Pitcher 1 is all or nothing. Almost all of his "good stats" occurred in a "game of his life". 5 IP, 9 K, 1 BB, 3 H.

I will say our team defense is "not good". There are very few BIP in our rec league and the speed of those balls is vastly different than the speed of the BIP in TB games. Those facts combined with lack of practice lead to, IMO, quite a few "hits" that aren't errors, but should definitely be "outs". So, in that regard I view the pitchers who are allowing more H/IP to be "doing their job" rather well. Pitcher 4 does decently against lower teams, but when he pitched against higher teams, it was BP and wind sprints for the OF. Our BABIP is about 70 points lower than our opponents. We walk just as much, and strike out about 1.5 times more. Our "reached on base %" is much less as we've made about 30 more errors than our opponents. I will also say we're a part-time A level TB team that has essentially only played full-time AA TB teams due to schedule opportunity limitations.

I honestly don’t know whether velocity is only or even main component in what makes hitters miss as opposed to making contact, but I seriously doubt it. “Relative” velocity maybe, but not velocity in and of itself.

Less reaction time is rarely preferable over more reaction time. I suppose this is age-dependent, as strength, body control, and adjustments increase as players age and develop.

I don’t think “control” is analogous to throwing strikes, and I don’t think accuracy should be measured in strike percentage. Strike percentage measures strikes, not control, and they often are 2 very different things. I’ve attached something I now run as part of the stat “package”.

I think over time, strike % and BB rate, pretty much tells a decent overall story. At the youth ages there probably aren;t a lot of pitchers that are "throwing to the periphery" intentionally and with good accuracy, but not having good S%.

I only have minor differences. I’d include ROFCs too, and I’m always a bit leery of tracking something as objective as a “hard hit ball”. Now if you’re the only guy making that judgment, its ok, but if its someone else or different people making the judgment, I’d have a problem with it.

It's just me, and "focusing on what we can control" is a major emphasis. All a batter can really do is [1] choose which pitches to swing at, and [2] hit the ball hard or not. So, it's an emphasis. As I said previously, I get tired of watching batters crush a ball right at the CF and act as if they did something wrong because they got out ... while the guy that hit a swinging bunt feels as if they've done something great because they got on base.

[scorekeeper]

At the youth ages, IMO, it's pretty much the same thing. We're basically talking about throwing a ball through a hula hoop, even if it means that at the periphery it's an inch or two off the actual strike zone.

The trouble with allowing “pretty much the same thing” to creep into discussions, is that it allows the next guy to say something that’s ““pretty much the same thing” too. After not too long, you end up with the same thing that happens when you tell a story to one person who passes it on to another, and by the time ten people have passed it on, it doesn’t sound a lot like the original story.

[/QUOTE]My point was that he and the "pitch to contact" pitcher pitch very similarly, but would be in two different categories. Basically, he fits the "description" of the pitch to contact guy, except he throws hard enough to be too quick for lots of hitters. Not having velocity isn't a skill. [/QUOTE]

Well, if you’re locked into velocity as being the only determiner, you have a legitimate point. But if you think other things have an equal impact, then there are “issues”.

PITCHER 1 --- 1.3 H/IP - 0.8 BB/IP - 1.2 K/IP - 2.1 WHIP
PITCHER 2 --- 2.0 H/IP - 0.6 BB/IP - 0.9 K/IP - 2.6 WHIP
PITCHER 3 --- 1.4 H/IP - 1.7 BB/IP - 0.9 K/IP - 3.1 WHIP
PITCHER 4 --- 2.1 H/IP - 1.1 BB/IP - 0.8 K/IP - 3.3 WHIP
PITCHER 5 --- 2.4 H/IP - 0.8 BB/IP - 0.3 K/IP - 3.2 WHIP

PITCHER 6 --- 1.5 H/IP - 0.5 BB/IP - 1.8 K/IP - 2.0 WHIP

Pitchers 4 & 5 have taken a good portion of Pitcher 3's innings. Pitcher 2 is a good pitcher that would have pitched more often had he not always pitched in rec league right before our TB games. Pitcher 1 is all or nothing. Almost all of his "good stats" occurred in a "game of his life". 5 IP, 9 K, 1 BB, 3 H.

I’m not sure what those numbers represent. Are you saying H/IP, BB/IP, K/IP and WHIP determine whether a pitcher is getting “hammered”?

I will say our team defense is "not good". There are very few BIP in our rec league and the speed of those balls is vastly different than the speed of the BIP in TB games. Those facts combined with lack of practice lead to, IMO, quite a few "hits" that aren't errors, but should definitely be "outs".

That’s why the two are scored differently. The “Ordinary Effort” is different. But I’d think fielding would be the easiest of the skills to teach.

So, in that regard I view the pitchers who are allowing more H/IP to be "doing their job" rather well. Pitcher 4 does decently against lower teams, but when he pitched against higher teams, it was BP and wind sprints for the OF.

I won’t say you’re exaggerating, but “BP and wind sprints for the OF”? That suggests all he was doing was “laying” the ball in, without even trying to change speeds or pitch types, and that every ball was not only hit, bit “driven” into the one of the gapes or down a line. Tough for me to believe that’s what happens on every pitch.

Our BABIP is about 70 points lower than our opponents. We walk just as much, and strike out about 1.5 times more. Our "reached on base %" is much less as we've made about 30 more errors than our opponents. I will also say we're a part-time A level TB team that has essentially only played full-time AA TB teams due to schedule opportunity limitations.

Well, to begin with, I don’t know what the difference between an A or an AA team is. Which is SUPPOSED to be the higher level? Its difficult for someone like me to comment on anything that’s based on a BIP being ruled a hit or something else, so I can’t say much about a BABIP that’s 70 points lower than your opponents. The difference in the K rates may well be only a matter of inexperience with better pitching, since the BB rate is the same. That tells me your hitters are reading the ball in relation to the zone, but likely are seeing pitching where the velocity is a bit higher and/or better OS pitches are being thrown. As I said earlier, I don’t see any excuse for a poor fielding team, since it requires only reps, which is time, not necessarily better mechanics like it does in pitching and hitting, because the time allowed to process and react is much longer.

Less reaction time is rarely preferable over more reaction time. I suppose this is age-dependent, as strength, body control, and adjustments increase as players age and develop.

I assume you’re talking about hitting, not fielding or pitching.

I think over time, strike % and BB rate, pretty much tells a decent overall story. At the youth ages there probably aren;t a lot of pitchers that are "throwing to the periphery" intentionally and with good accuracy, but not having good S%.

If you’re satisfied with “pretty much” of a complete story, then its true about what those metrics tell. As for pitchers intentionally "throwing to the periphery", I think you’re wrong. I believe most TRY to do that, but I doubt that many can do it with much consistency, even at the HS or college levels.

It's just me, and "focusing on what we can control" is a major emphasis.

Since its only you, how do you mark, track, and compute it? It sounds like we’re on QABs now, and I’m always looking for a good definition.

All a batter can really do is [1] choose which pitches to swing at, and [2] hit the ball hard or not. So, it's an emphasis. As I said previously, I get tired of watching batters crush a ball right at the CF and act as if they did something wrong because they got out ... while the guy that hit a swinging bunt feels as if they've done something great because they got on base.

Actually “1” is a skill, but 2 isn’t. The skill comes in being able to get the bat on plane to meet the ball, but since being off even the slightest can be the difference between a screaming liner and pop up or routine grounder, I have trouble seeing hard hit balls as being a skill.

[CircleChange11]

Well, if you’re locked into velocity as being the only determiner, you have a legitimate point. But if you think other things have an equal impact, then there are “issues”.

At this age I'm not open to considering [1] movement, and [2] changing speeds.

These guys are 1-2 years away from using 3-fingers to throw a fastball. If a pitcher at this age is "making it move" he's probably doing something wrong, such as thropwing with his fingers on the side of the ball (sliders) or similar thing. The most effective changeups I've seen at this age are "ephus pitches" or "gravity balls". Seriously, batters at this age are like largemouth bass on something shiny with those things. They can't resist (and it kills me, because the pitch is so ridiculous).

Well, to begin with, I don’t know what the difference between an A or an AA team is. Which is SUPPOSED to be the higher level? Its difficult for someone like me to comment on anything that’s based on a BIP being ruled a hit or something else, so I can’t say much about a BABIP that’s 70 points lower than your opponents. The difference in the K rates may well be only a matter of inexperience with better pitching, since the BB rate is the same. That tells me your hitters are reading the ball in relation to the zone, but likely are seeing pitching where the velocity is a bit higher and/or better OS pitches are being thrown. As I said earlier, I don’t see any excuse for a poor fielding team, since it requires only reps, which is time, not necessarily better mechanics like it does in pitching and hitting, because the time allowed to process and react is much longer.

I don;t think I know either. I believe we are just a bad AA team. It's similar to MLB levels. AA is better than AA, then there's majors and elite/select (I think).

Difference in K rates is primarily due to velocity.

Our excuses for poor fielding are ...

[1] Rare practices (play in 2 leagues),
[2] Speed of TB is different. Rec League is slow rollers on thick grass ... TB is average to fast grounders on hard dirt infield.
[3] New positions - OF is new to almost all players, who have done nothing but SS-1B-P for their rec league teams.

If you’re satisfied with “pretty much” of a complete story, then its true about what those metrics tell. As for pitchers intentionally "throwing to the periphery", I think you’re wrong. I believe most TRY to do that, but I doubt that many can do it with much consistency, even at the HS or college levels.

Sorry, I was talking about 10U. IMHO, they "throw to the catcher/glove" and the catcher is generally set up "middle". There are few guys that can work to "sides of the plate" or even "off the plate".

[songtitle]

Sorry, I was talking about 10U. IMHO, they "throw to the catcher/glove" and the catcher is generally set up "middle". There are few guys that can work to "sides of the plate" or even "off the plate".

hmmm, we set up outside (until we got to 3 balls, anyway). Maybe this relates to that 'good rec' program idea on the other thread.

[scorekeeper]

At this age I'm not open to considering [1] movement, and [2] changing speeds.

These guys are 1-2 years away from using 3-fingers to throw a fastball. If a pitcher at this age is "making it move" he's probably doing something wrong, such as thropwing with his fingers on the side of the ball (sliders) or similar thing. The most effective changeups I've seen at this age are "ephus pitches" or "gravity balls". Seriously, batters at this age are like largemouth bass on something shiny with those things. They can't resist (and it kills me, because the pitch is so ridiculous).

WHOA! I was really under the impression that these kids were well above that level. I guess that has a lot to do with my preconception that kids such as you’re describing shouldn’t be playing travel ball or tournaments. My bad.

I don;t think I know either. I believe we are just a bad AA team. It's similar to MLB levels. AA is better than AA, then there's majors and elite/select (I think).

I’ll need to do a total recall, now that I understand the level we’re talking about.

Difference in K rates is primarily due to velocity.

At that level, absolutely.

Our excuses for poor fielding are ...

[1] Rare practices (play in 2 leagues),
[2] Speed of TB is different. Rec League is slow rollers on thick grass ... TB is average to fast grounders on hard dirt infield.
[3] New positions - OF is new to almost all players, who have done nothing but SS-1B-P for their rec league teams.

That seems to reinforce the oft expressed idea that practicing at that level is much more beneficial than playing games.

No excuse for the differences in the fields. In fact, I’ve many times lectured that having an IF as “fast” as possible is much more conducive to good fielding because there are fewer “rushes” or poor hops.

If new positions are really a problem, I’d say it was a good one, and will dies of natural attrition as the players simple get better with experience.

Sorry, I was talking about 10U. IMHO, they "throw to the catcher/glove" and the catcher is generally set up "middle". There are few guys that can work to "sides of the plate" or even "off the plate".

As I said, it would be a total restart for me because my mental picture of the players was way way off.

[CircleChange11]

WHOA! I was really under the impression that these kids were well above that level. I guess that has a lot to do with my preconception that kids such as you’re describing shouldn’t be playing travel ball or tournaments. My bad.

That's a good discussion to have. I know there are organizations that view players under 13 as not being ready for "travel ball". As one that did not invent travel ball, nor advocated for its rapid expansion, I don't really have an emotional investment in that aspect. I'm more dealing with the situation of "okay, we're playing travel ball. What do we need to do to be competitive and really develop the players?" Unfortunately, I do not feel that our local rec league really offers these players much outside of "picking the low-hanging fruit". Our interest in travel ball originated from playing in LL AS tournaments and events and wondering "Why can't we play games like this more often?"

Based on conversations, the parents and players enjoy the TB games much more than the rec league games, simply due to the quality of play (most times *grin*) and the increased action.

That seems to reinforce the oft expressed idea that practicing at that level is much more beneficial than playing games.

I'm one of those coaches that's MUCH more interested in practicing, instructing, and developing dedicated players than I am collecting talent and winning games ... especially pre-puberty. As a coach, I'm primarily interested in MORE practices for the TB teams, rather than just playing rec leagues games and then "moonlighting" as a TB team on the weekends and wednesdays ... the rec league does very little to prepare us for the TB style of play. Teams that we beat in 9yo LL AS have passed us up in regards to the "TB game" (baserunning, defending, etc). When we play travel, we usually have a tough first game while we adjust to the speed and style, and then do reasonably well on day 2, or the second game of a DH. My issue with the rec league is that there simply aren't any practices once the season starts and the players that develop are the ones who have dads that work with them consistently.

No excuse for the differences in the fields. In fact, I’ve many times lectured that having an IF as “fast” as possible is much more conducive to good fielding because there are fewer “rushes” or poor hops.

Completely agree.

[scorekeeper]

That's a good discussion to have. I know there are organizations that view players under 13 as not being ready for "travel ball". As one that did not invent travel ball, nor advocated for its rapid expansion, I don't really have an emotional investment in that aspect. I'm more dealing with the situation of "okay, we're playing travel ball. What do we need to do to be competitive and really develop the players?" Unfortunately, I do not feel that our local rec league really offers these players much outside of "picking the low-hanging fruit". Our interest in travel ball originated from playing in LL AS tournaments and events and wondering "Why can't we play games like this more often?"

My feelings don’t have anything to do with them being “ready”, but rather that I honestly don’t see the NEED. If the objective is to make the players “better”, the best thing they could do is practice in meaningful ways. If the objective is to have fun with the family and friends, buy a ticket to Disneyland, Waterworld, or Six Flags.

I guess I don’t see why the LEAGUE has to do everything. There’s no reason why parents can’t round up a bunch of kids and teach them the game.

Based on conversations, the parents and players enjoy the TB games much more than the rec league games, simply due to the quality of play (most times *grin*) and the increased action.

What else would they say? I’m spending a lot of time and $$$$ and it sucks?

I'm one of those coaches that's MUCH more interested in practicing, instructing, and developing dedicated players than I am collecting talent and winning games ... especially pre-puberty. As a coach, I'm primarily interested in MORE practices for the TB teams, rather than just playing rec leagues games and then "moonlighting" as a TB team on the weekends and wednesdays ... the rec league does very little to prepare us for the TB style of play. Teams that we beat in 9yo LL AS have passed us up in regards to the "TB game" (baserunning, defending, etc). When we play travel, we usually have a tough first game while we adjust to the speed and style, and then do reasonably well on day 2, or the second game of a DH. My issue with the rec league is that there simply aren't any practices once the season starts and the players that develop are the ones who have dads that work with them consistently.

I really don’t see the need to develop ML players at 9YO. I’ve been around a very long time, and I know that if a kid plays rec ball and loves the game, there’s plenty of time for them to develop once they hit the big field.

As for the TB style of play, open bases and defending the running game isn’t brain surgery and can easily be learned in only a few weeks.

Completely agree.

Here’s what’s frustrating. Most people do agree, but its very rare that anyone will do anything about it. I cut the IF to ½” for the LLI Minors and Majors teams, and everyone screamed for my head. But after a few practices, there wasn’t even one complaint. The next year we opened our new field, and I conned the assn. into putting a hybrid Bermuda on the IF of both the small and big diamonds, then cut them both to 3/16th, using a borrowed triplex from the golf course. We eventually bought a used greens “walker” mower, and the 3/16ths was standard for the next 7 years. It was amazing to see golfers putting on the infields late in the evening when there was no one playing.

[CircleChange11]

I guess I don’t see why the LEAGUE has to do everything. There’s no reason why parents can’t round up a bunch of kids and teach them the game.

I agree. Why don;t more of them do that?

The league IS the dads, and there are fewer and fewer of them.

What else would they say? I’m spending a lot of time and $$$$ and it sucks?

That's what quite a few said last year.

Last year I paid a lot of money and it sucked.

Not every coach is concerned about more than just one kid. My kid had a very productive year as a 9yo on a 10U team. It still sucked. And for me to say something baseball-related sucked is like a religious grandma finding a version of Amazing Grace that she doesn't like.

My concern was that because of our record or due to the hectic schedule that kids wouldn't be having fun or were starting to feel run down. They weren't.

I really don’t see the need to develop ML players at 9YO. I’ve been around a very long time, and I know that if a kid plays rec ball and loves the game, there’s plenty of time for them to develop once they hit the big field.

I think that's a foolish (respectfully) way to look at it. My son is entering 6th grade. This is the first year that they have options for classes. He is in accelerated math and high language arts. Why is this acceptable in academics or music, but not sports? No one gets their feelings hurt when the talented 9yo violinist goes out of town for private lessons outside of the school's band teacher. Should all kids in junior high take the same coursework, since they can expand and differentiate later on in high school. Why can;t they just take it easy and relax and enjoy being kids? Why do they want to develop above the norm and be challenged at their ability level? There's plenty of time for that later.

It's amazing to me. Last year at the JH we had a 6th grader who is the best basketball player in the entire school. He just is. He's amazing. He didn't even get moved up to 7th-8th team (should have easily been the 8th grade point guard ... easily). Why? Because the parents wouldn;t like it ... so he played 6th grade and scored 30 a game. Y'know what everyone else learned? Pass it to him and "high fives".

I believe in ability grouping in almost everything, even if it means kids will be in different groups for different things. I view TB as "accelerated baseball" or "high baseball". It's a new challenge for the kids that are ready for it. Does it guarantee college or pro success? No more than being enrolled in high math classes do.

To me, it's literally stunning how some people gt all worked up if someone is going to play on a different sports team/league. Different classes or private school? No biggie.

As for the TB style of play, open bases and defending the running game isn’t brain surgery and can easily be learned in only a few weeks.

Provided adequate practice, I agree. Learning it on the fly in game only situations, I disagree and based that on my 2 years of 10U part-time TB experience. I haven't particularly enjoyed being the 1-legged team at an ass-kicking contest ... but losing the TB games has been more enjoyable than winning the rec league championships (I don't say that as disrespectful or elite thinking, just expressing an honest opinion.) I grew up in a town the same size of where I live now, only we were surrounded by 5 larger cities. I grew up playing schools that were bigger than we were, and we did very well. I'd rather play teams better than us and lose than play teams worse than us and win.

Here’s what’s frustrating. Most people do agree, but its very rare that anyone will do anything about it. I cut the IF to ½” for the LLI Minors and Majors teams, and everyone screamed for my head. But after a few practices, there wasn’t even one complaint. The next year we opened our new field, and I conned the assn. into putting a hybrid Bermuda on the IF of both the small and big diamonds, then cut them both to 3/16th, using a borrowed triplex from the golf course. We eventually bought a used greens “walker” mower, and the 3/16ths was standard for the next 7 years. It was amazing to see golfers putting on the infields late in the evening when there was no one playing.

I hate you. *grin* I recall doing that with a fungo and a baseball on our spring trips to Fort Walton, FL. We'd "put" a ball to see who could come closest to hitting the foul pole.

I spent an hour after the game tonight (10-11 PM) watering our field and tamping the plate and mound so that the mound wouldn't be 8 inches of dust and home plate took a lot of work to fill in the craters. Evidently it hadn't been done since the last time we had a TB game. When we go places, their fields and teams are first-class hosts. I want them to have the same experience when they come to us. We hire certified umps who wear professional attire.

As always I enjoy the conversation.

[scorekeeper]

I agree. Why don;t more of them do that?

Because A) not as many people want to get their “hands dirty” and might be thought, and B) even if they did, there’s more of a desire to pound one’s chest than to have reason to pound it.

The league IS the dads, and there are fewer and fewer of them.

No, there are the same number of dads, just fewer who want to put up with the “bother”. It’s a lot like the rest of society where its much easier to pay or let someone else volunteer to do it, then talk about what a lousy job they do.

That's what quite a few said last year.

I think that’s said a lot more than many want to admit.

Last year I paid a lot of money and it sucked.

Not every coach is concerned about more than just one kid. My kid had a very productive year as a 9yo on a 10U team. It still sucked. And for me to say something baseball-related sucked is like a religious grandma finding a version of Amazing Grace that she doesn't like.

That’s the reality, not that everything is hunky-dory.

My concern was that because of our record or due to the hectic schedule that kids wouldn't be having fun or were starting to feel run down. They weren't.

Its seldom that the kids don’t have fun or start to feel run-down. They have energy coming out of their ears. It’s the parents! Living one’s life orbiting around a kid’s baseball experience it great for a few hours a day a few times a week, but when you’re at some tournament away from home and you only have one game to play that day, there’s still another 21 hours to fill that day. Kids love it that parents spend the day trying to keep them happy, but its not often that parents find the same things a lot of fun to do, day after day, or 10 times a year at different events.

I think that's a foolish (respectfully) way to look at it. My son is entering 6th grade. This is the first year that they have options for classes. He is in accelerated math and high language arts. Why is this acceptable in academics or music, but not sports? No one gets their feelings hurt when the talented 9yo violinist goes out of town for private lessons outside of the school's band teacher. Should all kids in junior high take the same coursework, since they can expand and differentiate later on in high school. Why can;t they just take it easy and relax and enjoy being kids? Why do they want to develop above the norm and be challenged at their ability level? There's plenty of time for that later.

Why is it foolish? Is it untrue? Ds you put sports on the same level as academics? Maybe you aren’t offended when someone sends their 9YO out of town for violin lessons, but I think its unnecessary. What’s happening is, those things that kids have a knack for or just enjoy doing and thus do better than others their age, have their parents turn it into a “job”, with all of the obligations and none of the reward, other than some kind of trophy. Of course that’s not true in every case, and it may not even be true in most cases. But somewhere in there, there are kids who would be better off physically and mentally if they weren’t put on the “fast track” to professional sports.

It's amazing to me. Last year at the JH we had a 6th grader who is the best basketball player in the entire school. He just is. He's amazing. He didn't even get moved up to 7th-8th team (should have easily been the 8th grade point guard ... easily). Why? Because the parents wouldn;t like it ... so he played 6th grade and scored 30 a game. Y'know what everyone else learned? Pass it to him and "high fives".

Why is it that because the kid’s parents made a parental decision you didn’t agree with, you assume no one learned anything?

I believe in ability grouping in almost everything, even if it means kids will be in different groups for different things. I view TB as "accelerated baseball" or "high baseball". It's a new challenge for the kids that are ready for it. Does it guarantee college or pro success? No more than being enrolled in high math classes do.

I understand that that’s what you believe, and it’s one of many beliefs that have merit. But its not one that’s shared by everyone.

To me, it's literally stunning how some people gt all worked up if someone is going to play on a different sports team/league. Different classes or private school? No biggie.

And to me its “literally stunning how some people” get all worked up because someone doesn’t believe every kid needs to attack something at 110% effort, rather than just grow with and enjoy it as it comes.

Provided adequate practice, I agree. Learning it on the fly in game only situations, I disagree and based that on my 2 years of 10U part-time TB experience. I haven't particularly enjoyed being the 1-legged team at an ass-kicking contest ... but losing the TB games has been more enjoyable than winning the rec league championships (I don't say that as disrespectful or elite thinking, just expressing an honest opinion.) I grew up in a town the same size of where I live now, only we were surrounded by 5 larger cities. I grew up playing schools that were bigger than we were, and we did very well. I'd rather play teams better than us and lose than play teams worse than us and win.

Provided adequate practice? And if that doesn’t happen, who’s fault is it? The rec league’s because they didn’t mandate it? Truth be told, most “select” teams don’t need practice to play “better” ball than rec ball because they start out with “better” players. So why not raise the level of 50 kids 10% than 10 kids 20%?

I hate you. *grin* I recall doing that with a fungo and a baseball on our spring trips to Fort Walton, FL. We'd "put" a ball to see who could come closest to hitting the foul pole.

We had a group of older guys who’d play Bocce every Monday morning when one of the golf courses was closed. One day one of them asked if they could just walk on the fields. I told them to bring the Bocce balls and have a go to see what it was like. That was about 7 or 8 years ago, and still on Mondays, there’s a Bocce game being played on the infield of the big field.

I spent an hour after the game tonight (10-11 PM) watering our field and tamping the plate and mound so that the mound wouldn't be 8 inches of dust and home plate took a lot of work to fill in the craters. Evidently it hadn't been done since the last time we had a TB game. When we go places, their fields and teams are first-class hosts. I want them to have the same experience when they come to us. We hire certified umps who wear professional attire.

That reflects pride in doing a job as well as possible, for no personal gain what-so-ever. It’s the same way I am with keeping score and running numbers. A lot of people don’t understand that because they have no idea of what pride in what one does means.

As always I enjoy the conversation.

Communications is the only true road to enlightenment.

[CircleChange11]

Why is it foolish? Is it untrue? Do you put sports on the same level as academics?

I don;t want to answer that. *grin*

Maybe you aren’t offended when someone sends their 9YO out of town for violin lessons, but I think its unnecessary. What’s happening is, those things that kids have a knack for or just enjoy doing and thus do better than others their age, have their parents turn it into a “job”, with all of the obligations and none of the reward, other than some kind of trophy. Of course that’s not true in every case, and it may not even be true in most cases. But somewhere in there, there are kids who would be better off physically and mentally if they weren’t put on the “fast track” to professional sports.

Things that used to be play, have now become organized. I'm disappointed that I never see just a group of kids at the diamonds during the day. I don;t see kids in driveways having basketball games, etc. I do see kids on youtube making fun of everyone and everything as a new hobby.

I'm not the biggest fan of all the adult "organization" of everything, but I don;t think it has to inherently be a job for the kids.

Why is it that because the kid’s parents made a parental decision you didn’t agree with, you assume no one learned anything?

The coach elected not to promote him because [1] we haven't promoted kids from 6th to 8th grade before, and [2] they feared backlash from the 8th grade parents who had been in the program for 3 years whose kid would now be sitting behind a 6th grader. To me, it's not "fair" for the rest of the kids to not put your "best team" on the floor. You demand the best from the kids, state that as a coach your job is to put them in the best position to win, etc. You have to do that. If the adults don;t like it, then it's their problem (not said in a mean way, just literally).

I understand that that’s what you believe, and it’s one of many beliefs that have merit. But its not one that’s shared by everyone.

I believe in ability grouping, primarily as the option to age grouping.

Age grouping is just tremendously stupid. We all recognize that kids at the same age are very different. So, why do we use age grouping? We age group for convenience and to avoid having to make tough, subjective decisions.

And to me its “literally stunning how some people” get all worked up because someone doesn’t believe every kid needs to attack something at 110% effort, rather than just grow with and enjoy it as it comes.

The way I look at it is ....

1. The kids are playing about the same number of games.
2. They are playing it at their competitive level.
3. They practice more often (isn;t that a good thing?)

The negative aspect could be the travel. Since we don;t travel further than one hour away, I don;t view it as a big deal.

I don;t see the value in having the kids exert the same effort for activities that are below their ability and competitive level. There is plenty of time for them to have fun, even non-organized baseball fun.

Note: we're not talking about 60 TB games and numerous tourneys. We're talking about 30G and 3-4 tourneys.

Provided adequate practice? And if that doesn’t happen, who’s fault is it? The rec league’s because they didn’t mandate it? Truth be told, most “select” teams don’t need practice to play “better” ball than rec ball because they start out with “better” players. So why not raise the level of 50 kids 10% than 10 kids 20%?

It's the double schedule that's the culprit.

Why would you assume that the TB quality isn't better than the rec league? It obviously is. We need TB practice to become more accustomed to the speed of the TB game and the style of play. In terms of ability and things of that nature, a small town part-time team more than held their own against some rather respectable bigger teams (that are not from just one community).

My hangup with the rec league is that they like to use the TB team to prepare LL All-Stars, well except for the ONE player that's dropped at the end of the year and replaced with a non-TB kid so that they can say that the teams aren't "identical". They LOVE that aspect. They don;t like that I complain that the teams in the past have pitched kids to their max two days after they threw 4 IP (85 pitches) in a TB game. They don't like when they need to reschedule a rain out or a game cancelled because the lights were broken for a week, that there's a TB game scheduled on one of the open dates.

I just want everyone to be clear on what's really going on.

My goal is NOT to become the Kingpin of local TB (In truth I'd prefer to just move to Arizona, as we have friends in the Havasu area). I could easily just take my kid and go play on an academy TB team as he's good enough to make the team, we have the funds to pay, and we're all baseball crazy enough to go around the state for 50+ games and have fun doing it. But, that doesn;t help the other kids in town who will be pitched "double duty" as adults battle over whose property the kids are (they are their parents' property. Period.) My issue with our youth baseball board is their views that resemble owners from the 40s, where once a kid signs up for youth baseball at age 5, they "own" that kid for the duration of their career. My view is that kids are essentially free agents every year and will choose their options based on their own criteria. There is now an attractive option for kids.

[scorekeeper]

I don;t want to answer that. *grin*

S’ok. This isn’t a court of law, so there’ll be no contempt of court for not answering.

Things that used to be play, have now become organized. I'm disappointed that I never see just a group of kids at the diamonds during the day. I don;t see kids in driveways having basketball games, etc. I do see kids on youtube making fun of everyone and everything as a new hobby.

I’ve been very much saddened by that myself. Its not that I have anything against kids wanting to become better at something, but I do so miss the part of the game where they had to figure out how to do it on their own. For many years I’ve told people that if they want to introduce something new and exciting to their team, get 18 kids to show up at a field, supply water and snacks, along with equipment like catcher’s gear, bats, and some old raggedy balls, then tell them to choose up sides and play a game, using players on offense to as umpires.

That’s exactly what we’d do over and over again for many years as I was growing up. But most kids today haven’t got the slightest idea about what to do without some adult scripting every single movement, from the time they arrive at the field, until they toss their snack in the trash after the game.

I'm not the biggest fan of all the adult "organization" of everything, but I don;t think it has to inherently be a job for the kids.

As you have prolly already figgered out, I’m not any fan of it, big or small, and you are correct, that it doesn’t have to inherently be seen as a job. But its not something every kid has to feel in order for it to have a tremendous impact.

The coach elected not to promote him because [1] we haven't promoted kids from 6th to 8th grade before, and [2] they feared backlash from the 8th grade parents who had been in the program for 3 years whose kid would now be sitting behind a 6th grader. To me, it's not "fair" for the rest of the kids to not put your "best team" on the floor. You demand the best from the kids, state that as a coach your job is to put them in the best position to win, etc. You have to do that. If the adults don;t like it, then it's their problem (not said in a mean way, just literally).

Think about it. What’s the big deal about MS basketball? Will anyone get a ‘ship or be signing an NBA contract because of it? When my son was a Fr, I got all hopped up about him not being promoted to the JV right away, and after he did, I got hopped up because he wasn’t’ sent right to V. Guess what? It didn’t hurt him a bit to play at those two levels, even though he could have easily had success at the V level as a Fr.

The thing was, he wasn’t the only kid in the program who could have done that, and I’m sure in most HS programs the same could be said. Sometimes its not ALL about putting the best players on the field, as much as it is putting the best team on the field. Its not pro ball where people get paid to do what they’re told, so there has to be some other reason than winning. There has to be a reason for the players to believe years of hard work and dedication to a program don’t get tossed in the can just because some underclassman has a bit more talent.

Players understand it when they get “beat out”, but if they have seniority, they also understand that they should get additional opportunities to prove themselves. That’s what’s so nice about most HS schedules. The coach can easily spend a half a season making sure the older guys get lots of chances so that there’s little doubt about who belongs on the field.

Now I don’t believe in maintaining a tradition just for tradition’s sake, but if no 6th grader had ever been promoted to 8th before, there’d better be a better reason than he’s a better player. He better be one of the very best on the team at the time he gets promoted, otherwise there’s a huge chance of some REAL problems. The mental and physical difference between a 6th and an 8th grader are pretty substantial, and its not as though the kid didn’t get to play, so I don’t see the big deal at all.

I believe in ability grouping, primarily as the option to age grouping.

That’s fine for AAU basketball or tournament baseball, but school ball is something different to me an a lot of others as well.

Age grouping is just tremendously stupid. We all recognize that kids at the same age are very different. So, why do we use age grouping? We age group for convenience and to avoid having to make tough, subjective decisions.

A lot of that comes from the dearth of skill in accurately grouping by skill. The object of a school team isn’t to be the best team in the country, and it’s a good thing too because for public schools at least, they’re kinda stuck with talent in their district.

The way I look at it is ....

1. The kids are playing about the same number of games.
2. They are playing it at their competitive level.
3. They practice more often (isn;t that a good thing?)

The negative aspect could be the travel. Since we don;t travel further than one hour away, I don;t view it as a big deal.

I don;t see the value in having the kids exert the same effort for activities that are below their ability and competitive level. There is plenty of time for them to have fun, even non-organized baseball fun.

Note: we're not talking about 60 TB games and numerous tourneys. We're talking about 30G and 3-4 tourneys.

I think you’re making things much more complicated than they need to be. What did it hurt to have that kid score 30 points a game, and if he had played on the 8th grade team, if they’d have gone 30-0, what good would it have done anyone?

It's the double schedule that's the culprit.

I don’t get it.

Why would you assume that the TB quality isn't better than the rec league? It obviously is. We need TB practice to become more accustomed to the speed of the TB game and the style of play. In terms of ability and things of that nature, a small town part-time team more than held their own against some rather respectable bigger teams (that are not from just one community).

I didn’t assume that at all. In fact, I assume quite the opposite. It sounds as though you’re saying you don’t practice to develop the players in all aspects of their games, but rather to make some nebulous adjustment to TRAVEL BALL?

My hangup with the rec league is that they like to use the TB team to prepare LL All-Stars, well except for the ONE player that's dropped at the end of the year and replaced with a non-TB kid so that they can say that the teams aren't "identical". They LOVE that aspect. They don;t like that I complain that the teams in the past have pitched kids to their max two days after they threw 4 IP (85 pitches) in a TB game. They don't like when they need to reschedule a rain out or a game cancelled because the lights were broken for a week, that there's a TB game scheduled on one of the open dates.

You’re talking apples, oranges, and persimmons. Pick one venue and go with it, leaving the other venue for those who want to stay with it, then don’t mix them.

I just want everyone to be clear on what's really going on.

I think I understand, and I must say its not a picture I particularly care for.

My goal is NOT to become the Kingpin of local TB (In truth I'd prefer to just move to Arizona, as we have friends in the Havasu area). I could easily just take my kid and go play on an academy TB team as he's good enough to make the team, we have the funds to pay, and we're all baseball crazy enough to go around the state for 50+ games and have fun doing it. But, that doesn;t help the other kids in town who will be pitched "double duty" as adults battle over whose property the kids are (they are their parents' property. Period.) My issue with our youth baseball board is their views that resemble owners from the 40s, where once a kid signs up for youth baseball at age 5, they "own" that kid for the duration of their career. My view is that kids are essentially free agents every year and will choose their options based on their own criteria. There is now an attractive option for kids.

And that’s why I advocate very strongly that parents should make the choice of one venue or the other, and then go with it. I learned a long time ago that its hard enough to change the direction of an entire league, let alone two, and then to try to get them to work together. I watched our small league get wrecked by people insisting the good players needed more stimulating environments, so they’d use the league as a place to place unless they had a MORE IMPORTANT game or practice.

It took less than 1 full season for the league to collapse to the point where not really decent player remained. But once all those great people with the brilliant ideas got the heck out of the picture, it only took 2 seasons to build it back again. That happened because kids who would have seldom got a chance to get a lot of opportunities, suddenly did, and they got better very quickly. 4 years later, about the same percentage of kids from each venue made the various HS teams we fed. It just isn’t that big of a deal.

Of course I have the luxury of looking back in hindsight, and having been on both sides of the coin.

[CircleChange11]

Think about it. What’s the big deal about MS basketball? Will anyone get a ‘ship or be signing an NBA contract because of it?

It's not a life and death situation for certain. The aspect that bothers me is that very often (at least IMO) we make decisions related to kids based on how other adults will feel about it.

The kid is just an amazing and mature player. The AAU teams he plays on are better than our 8th grade basketball team. He'd be the best player on the 8th grade team.

It's as if everyone treats a situation as if he HAS TO become a precedent. As if promoting this player means that every good 6th grader gets promoted if they're equal to or greater than an 8th grade player. It's as if we can't treat a special kid as if they are a unique situation.

I don’t get it.

1. 2 rec leagues games per week ... good.
2. 2-3 TB games per week ... good.

3. 2 rec league games + 2-3 TB games per week .... not good.

I didn’t assume that at all. In fact, I assume quite the opposite. It sounds as though you’re saying you don’t practice to develop the players in all aspects of their games, but rather to make some nebulous adjustment to TRAVEL BALL?

I'm saying we'd need to practice at the TB speed of game. Harder grounders, faster BP, specific team defense. It's not even so much as the speed as it the repititions. IMHO, kids should take grounders, play catch and hit pitches daily.

And that’s why I advocate very strongly that parents should make the choice of one venue or the other, and then go with it. I learned a long time ago that its hard enough to change the direction of an entire league, let alone two, and then to try to get them to work together. I watched our small league get wrecked by people insisting the good players needed more stimulating environments, so they’d use the league as a place to place unless they had a MORE IMPORTANT game or practice.

My view is its "parents choice". LL is struggling with the idea that "they can't stop them (parents)". They keep thinking there's gotta be some way that they can control the parents and essentially make them do what LL wants them to do.

It took less than 1 full season for the league to collapse to the point where not really decent player remained. But once all those great people with the brilliant ideas got the heck out of the picture, it only took 2 seasons to build it back again. That happened because kids who would have seldom got a chance to get a lot of opportunities, suddenly did, and they got better very quickly. 4 years later, about the same percentage of kids from each venue made the various HS teams we fed. It just isn’t that big of a deal.

My personal opinion is that by removing the TB kids from the rec league, the rec league players will have A LOT more fun playing new positions, getting experience, new players making All-Star teams, pitching, and not be dominated by the top 12 kids that the league may actually grow.

The thing is that it's going to require coaches that want to invest time and have quality instructional skills. I'm not sure how abundant that it is our community.

Of course I have the luxury of looking back in hindsight, and having been on both sides of the coin.

The way I look at it is ... "kids are going to play TB". They're either going to go out of town to play it, or they can play it here. They aren't going to just settle and say "Oh well, TB is for the rest of the world. I'll just settle for playing hometown rec league."

As I said, if it was a big enough deal for me I'd just "take my kid and go". But, that only resolves the issue for "one kid", and he's/we're not the only ones that would like to play more TB.

I do admit that I have issues with kids pitching from 46-feet for 4 consecutive years (9-12). My son will go from LL Minors (46/60) to Junior High (54/80 ?), and then back to (46/65) and play TB (50/70). Why would he need to play 2 more years of 46/65 in a style of play that is different than school ball?

[mudvnine]

I’m not quite understanding what getting hits has to do with anything. Yes you have to hit the ball to get a base hit, but whether or not it’s a base hit, the ball has still been hit.



Well, I certainly believe walking or hitting batters is a bad thing, but the more strikes thrown, the fewer walks are possible. And if a pitcher can get rid of a batter without getting into a 3 ball count, a walk is impossible. One thing I have my program track is 3 ball counts. I’ve noticed that the teams who’d pitchers stay out of 3 ball counts, which can also be expressed as pitching to contact, sure seem to be the most successful on a game by game basis. I haven’t run any numbers to prove/disprove that, but I’m watching that pretty closely during games, and a high number of 3 ball counts usually is ties to problems.

And it seem that that holds true no matter what the level. Take a look at the link. Doc3.pdf

The top game was the StL/Cle game yesterday, the middle game was out team’s final playoff game, and the bottom one was a random LLI Majors game I score a few weeks back. See if you can tell which team won/lost based on nothing but those pictures.



Heck, college and pro ball isn’t immune from scorer deficiencies, which is why personally I like to see RBAs(Reached Base Averages) that include all PAs and treat reaching base in any manner as a positive.



Free passes are valuable at any level because there is no defense against them, other than to have the pitcher throw more strikes.



It almost sounds like you advocate throwing lots of pitches in an attempt to keep the bat batters from hitting the ball. Sounds bass ackwards to what the current philosophy is, where its to conserve pitches by getting the batter out by hitting the ball.

Which is preferable? A pitcher gives up 3 walks to 3 leadoff batters or 3 singles to 3 leadoff batters.

Well that was certainly interesting and time saving for me....those are my thoughts exactly (especially both the bolds).

So now why does "pitching to contact" confuse so many again?

[mudvnine]

I don’t know if I’d say “throwing strikes”, in the sense of throwing pitches in the strike zone was the most important thing in youth pitching, but I’d certainly agree that keeping the ball somewhat near the strike zone is, so there’s at least a chance of it being called or swung at.

Hmmm, very interesting....you mean like throwing it somewhere that the hitter "thinks" he can make contact, and takes a hack at it, but it's not necessarily "in" the strike zone?

See, you guys are catching on quite quickly now to that "pitching to contact" thingy....it wasn't really all that confusing or complicated now was it?

[mudvnine]

I don;t think I know either. I believe we are just a bad AA team. It's similar to MLB levels. AA is better than AA, then there's majors and elite/select (I think).

Difference in K rates is primarily due to velocity.

Our excuses for poor fielding are ...

[1] Rare practices (play in 2 leagues),
[2] Speed of TB is different. Rec League is slow rollers on thick grass ... TB is average to fast grounders on hard dirt infield.
[3] New positions - OF is new to almost all players, who have done nothing but SS-1B-P for their rec league teams.

Sorry, I was talking about 10U.....

WHOA! I was really under the impression that these kids were well above that level.

Whoa is right....I also thought we were talking about higher level and better pitchers. You're talking velocity and whatnot with a "bad AA" team's pitchers? Sorry to say it, but you guys are basically a below average rec. ball team.

Several of years ago, I took our rec. league's "B" All-Star team (9 & 10 y/os) to the "USSSA 10U AA World Series" in SoCal as a practice tourney just to get some experience before we went into sanctioned play.

After having the team together for just under two weeks, all us coaches thought we'd be way over-matched at a "World Series" and all, but just wanted some innings, and to see how the boys would do.....we placed third against teams from three states (six "TB" teams and 3 other all-star teams).

This same team went 1-2 and out in 9/10 sanctioned all-star play, so we weren't that good either, but better than many 10U "AA" TB clubs....and we didn't have anywhere near the rec. league's 10U best pitchers, in fact two of our "better" pitchers were 9 y/os.

Velocity is pointless at that age and level of play....any 10U with decent velocity isn't (or shouldn't) be playing on a "bad AA" TB team. JMO obviously....

[mudvnine]

Based on conversations, the parents and players enjoy the TB games much more than the rec league games, simply due to the quality of play (most times *grin*) and the increased action.

Oh goodness.....maybe it's a geographic thing, but as I mentioned above, "AA" TB is IMO, equivalent to our average rec. ball out here. Maybe Major or Elite TB has overall "quality" of play, but getting down to AAA not so much, and definitely not at the AA level.

Besides what my 9 and 10 year old "B" All-Star team did in the "10U AA World Series" after less than two weeks together, our "A" All-Star team of 9 & 10 year olds that same season, played in one "AAA" tournament against only "10U AAA TB" teams and took home 1st place (scoring 36 runs and giving up 8)...so much for the TB team "quality of play" I guess....as they too didn't make it past of the 2nd round of All-Star sanction play that year.

I'm one of those coaches that's MUCH more interested in practicing, instructing, and developing dedicated players than I am collecting talent and winning games ... especially pre-puberty. As a coach, I'm primarily interested in MORE practices for the TB teams, rather than just playing rec leagues games and then "moonlighting" as a TB team on the weekends and wednesdays ... the rec league does very little to prepare us for the TB style of play. Teams that we beat in 9yo LL AS have passed us up in regards to the "TB game" (baserunning, defending, etc). When we play travel, we usually have a tough first game while we adjust to the speed and style, and then do reasonably well on day 2, or the second game of a DH. My issue with the rec league is that there simply aren't any practices once the season starts and the players that develop are the ones who have dads that work with them consistently.

That's because too many of the families are trying to fit in rec. ball schedules in with TB schedules.

There should be ZERO travel ball levels of play below "Elite" (possibly "Majors"), during the rec. ball season. Those that cannot participate at that level of play need to stay in rec. ball exclusively....again JMO.

All that the TB levels below "Elite/Majors" have done is dilute the TB programs with more "daddy ball" for dads whose kids couldn't play at the "elite" level, and hurt the rec. ball leagues in the process.

Not trying to be condescending here, because I didn't let my sons play TB during rec. ball season until they could play or at least compete at those higher levels, and even shut down our TB team with the exception of, once-every-other-week Sunday practices during my youngest's 12U rec. ball season.....but that I guess is a discussion in another thread.

[scorekeeper]

It's not a life and death situation for certain. The aspect that bothers me is that very often (at least IMO) we make decisions related to kids based on how other adults will feel about it.

B I N G O

The kid is just an amazing and mature player. The AAU teams he plays on are better than our 8th grade basketball team. He'd be the best player on the 8th grade team.

It's as if everyone treats a situation as if he HAS TO become a precedent. As if promoting this player means that every good 6th grader gets promoted if they're equal to or greater than an 8th grade player. It's as if we can't treat a special kid as if they are a unique situation.

Here’s the thing that might be the gorilla in the room. Let’s say this kid did get to play up and made all the kids 1, 2, and 3 years older look horrible. How does anyone know there aren’t 4 other kids who while maybe not faring quite as well, prove they could easily play at that level? Now how do you go about picking who plays and who takes a hike and gets on with their life?

I just don’t believe its all about ability, and I’m not a big fan of seeing prepubescent kids playing and competing with kids 3 years their senor.

[/QUOTE]1. 2 rec leagues games per week ... good.
2. 2-3 TB games per week ... good.

3. 2 rec league games + 2-3 TB games per week .... not good. [/QUOTE]

I agree, but who is it that allows that to happen? The kids or the adults?

I'm saying we'd need to practice at the TB speed of game. Harder grounders, faster BP, specific team defense. It's not even so much as the speed as it the repititions. IMHO, kids should take grounders, play catch and hit pitches daily.

So why is it that that can’t happen in a rec program? It sure sounds like the rec program my boy was in back in the mid-90’s.

My view is its "parents choice". LL is struggling with the idea that "they can't stop them (parents)". They keep thinking there's gotta be some way that they can control the parents and essentially make them do what LL wants them to do.

That’s what you think LLI is “struggling” with, and it may well be in your area, but there’s no reason for it.

My personal opinion is that by removing the TB kids from the rec league, the rec league players will have A LOT more fun playing new positions, getting experience, new players making All-Star teams, pitching, and not be dominated by the top 12 kids that the league may actually grow.

Fine. Then get them out. If the LL program dies because of it, it wasn’t very strong to begin with. Then what you’ll end up with is several teams of weaker player going to tournaments and making TB all the weaker, just as it has every year for the last dozen or so years.

The thing is that it's going to require coaches that want to invest time and have quality instructional skills. I'm not sure how abundant that it is our community.

Evidently they’re there for the TB team. Its simply a matter of priorities. Ya know, its note a requirement that a good coach doesn’t allow players from other teams to practice with them. My boy’s LLI Majors coach invited kids from the other teams to come practice with ours because he had so many great coaches, and we almost always had a few kids from other teams at our practices. The end result was, after almost every practice for 2 years, there were enough kids for at least an 8 on 8 scrimmage for a few innings.

The way I look at it is ... "kids are going to play TB". They're either going to go out of town to play it, or they can play it here. They aren't going to just settle and say "Oh well, TB is for the rest of the world. I'll just settle for playing hometown rec league."

As I said, then let them go. Its not a sin to allow parents to take their kids and go.

As I said, if it was a big enough deal for me I'd just "take my kid and go". But, that only resolves the issue for "one kid", and he's/we're not the only ones that would like to play more TB.

Sometimes its better to concentrate on that one kid because of the energy it saves.

I do admit that I have issues with kids pitching from 46-feet for 4 consecutive years (9-12). My son will go from LL Minors (46/60) to Junior High (54/80 ?), and then back to (46/65) and play TB (50/70). Why would he need to play 2 more years of 46/65 in a style of play that is different than school ball?

Then you need to get you’re kid completely out of that program. Seriously. My kid played 46/60 until he was 12, then moved to the 60/90 in the same summer he played 12U all stars. He never played a game outside of LLI until the summer he was 14, and I think he did quite well without all the TB. In fact, of the 12 kids on his LL Majors team when he was 9, 9 went on to play college ball, and 4 went on to play pro ball. That was only 14 years ago, so its not as though it was in the 1800’s.

Each situation is different, but there’s no reason 10YO’s NEED to play outside of rec, other than for their parent’s peace of mind.

[CircleChange11]

So why is it that that can’t happen in a rec program? It sure sounds like the rec program my boy was in back in the mid-90’s.

I would say "Because it's not a very good rec league program."

That would be the bottom line. I'm not sure there's willingness upon the part of the adults to collectively try and make the rec league program "really good".

Fine. Then get them out. If the LL program dies because of it, it wasn’t very strong to begin with. Then what you’ll end up with is several teams of weaker player going to tournaments and making TB all the weaker, just as it has every year for the last dozen or so years.

That's very possible. I find myself continually examining ways that kids can "do both" effectively. It's going to require some "compromise" from both sides, and so far that hasn't been the reality. I'm hopeful we have some good discussions in the next few weeks.