New 50/70 division in LLI

[scorekeeper]

I’ve been hearing about this new “Division” LLI is putting in next season, and I’m wondering what all the LLI bashers are going to say now. Is LLI too late? Well, better late than never, plus it appears there will be an option for players to play in either one or both, so it looks like the late bloomers won’t get shoved out earlier than they should.

[Richmond Coach]

Our Cal Ripken League has adopted 50/70 for league play (11 and 12 YO). Since CRL offers all stars for both, we put 2 out teams. The stronger players make the 50/70 team and the 46/60 team is the 2nd tier kids. In the 11 YO age group my son played, the 2 allstar teams were competitive through states.

In CRL, there are 2 World Series for 12 YO (50/70 is the big WS in Aberdeen at Cal's place). The 46/60 is in different spots each year. I don't know why LL couldn't adopt something similar.

[Roothog66]

If I'm not wrong, that's been available for a few years now, but few leagues opt to use it. I would imagine that is due to the fact that playing that distance can't possibly lead to the LLWS.

[shake-n-bake]

I thought it was due mostly to field availability.

It's great for LL. Sounds like they've taken a really sensible approach to it as well.

[Bolts-Baseball]

http://www.littleleague.org/districtadmins/LLApprovesNewDivision.htm

They have had a 50-70 Pilot Program over the past two seasons...

Wondering when Williamsport fields be converted to 50/70 with stealing & balks...?

Welcome to the 90's LLI!!! LOL!

[CircleChange11]

http://www.littleleague.org/district...ewDivision.htm

They have had a 50-70 Pilot Program over the past two seasons...

Wondering when Williamsport fields be converted to 50/70 with stealing & balks...?

Welcome to the 90's LLI!!! LOL!

I looked at which areas had been using the waiver/pilot and they were all Northern Illinois Suburban teams ... which is not surprising because that's where most of the TB Conferences are that also play 50/70.

Our local league will not go 50/70 because the field is surrounded by other fields, meaning the dimensions are locked. So on a 46/60 field with 180-210 foot fences, we're stuck with the K-HR league.

12U travel plays 50/70 as does 11U ... so I was under the impression that LL was resistent to change to prevent it from looking like "TB was right, the 50/70 distance is where it should be".

[AdamInNY]

Our local little league just converted one of it's fields to 50/70 (actually 71/75) for this purpose and the purpose that most 11/12 travel leagues around us play on these dimensions. About time....

[HeinekenMan]

One of our local leagues hosted the LL 50/70 state tournament this year. Since few teams have made the transition, I think it was a good opportunity for leagues to earn a trip to state.

I think 50/70 eventually will replace 46/60 and become the new Major Division and will be used for the 11-12 Little League Division World Series. I don't know how long it will take before they complete that transition.

My personal thoughts: I like the idea of preparing kids for the big field. Sixty to 90 is too big of a jump. The same goes for 46 to 60. The extra four feet could result in some good 10-year-old pitchers staying in the Minors Division to develop more. Currently, our local league allows the talented 10s to play Major Division ball. The result is that the Minor Division becomes watered down with 8s and 9s who can't throw strikes, and the kids don't develop because it turns into a walk fest. Meanwhile, many of the 10s find out that batting against a 12-year-old and pitching to a 12-year-old aren't as easy and mom and dad thought. I've seen talented 10-year-olds lose confidence and struggle in the Major Division.

Of note: Our Dixie league uses 50/70 for the 11-12 division. But it also uses this length for the 13-14 division. Most coaches believe the 13-14 kids should play on a high school field. I agree. Or at least something like 55/80.

[scorekeeper]

…My personal thoughts: I like the idea of preparing kids for the big field. Sixty to 90 is too big of a jump.

The only reason most people think 60 to 90 is too big a jump, is because they can’t stand the thought of their little wunderkind not performing like a man among boys for about 10-15 games. I often wonder how anyone in LL made it anywhere on the big field for all those years when there were only 46.60 and 60/90 fields.

The same goes for 46 to 60. The extra four feet could result in some good 10-year-old pitchers staying in the Minors Division to develop more. Currently, our local league allows the talented 10s to play Major Division ball.

Once again someone uses their league as a basis from which to make judgments about all other leagues in all other situations. Out league has always allowed 9’s to play Majors if the coaches and parents want. They’ve had to do that because our league is very small with access to a limited number of kids. What will forcing all majors players to go to 50/70 do to a league like ours where there just aren’t enough talented players?

I understand there are positives and negatives galore in this, but I guarantee the answer isn’t one size fits all.

[CircleChange11]

The only reason most people think 60 to 90 is too big a jump, is because they can’t stand the thought of their little wunderkind not performing like a man among boys for about 10-15 games. I often wonder how anyone in LL made it anywhere on the big field for all those years when there were only 46.60 and 60/90 fields.

I gotta admit that your opinion on this kinda pisses me off ... but only because you're a smart guy.

Medical research, as well as, journals full of information in exercise physiology tell us that smaller progressions are better than great big jumps.

So, if we have a choice, why not use smaller progressions. To not do just seems outright dumb to me.

I say that as a dad whose wunderkid would only be enhanced by the big jump because the lesser athletes would be overwhelmed. So, if I were selfish, I'd be all for the big jumps because my kid could still pitch, still play every position (arm strength) and still hit the ball through the OF's. The smaller kids would be pushed off to the side. Sorry kid, we don't need 8 second basemen.

The kids that would fold would be the kids that have been getting by with bloops and short throws ... in other words the undersized kids and ones with poor mechanics. I'm seeing this right now with the 12yo's that went to regionals in LLWs and them playing junior high ball (54/80). The studs are still the studs. The kids that looked impressive on the mound (the non-LLAS) from 46-feet aren't looking so hot from 54-feet. It's the cold hard slap of reality.

I often wonder how anyone in LL made it anywhere on the big field for all those years when there were only 46.60 and 60/90 fields.

We did a whole bunch of stuff as kids that now has better/safer alternatives. While we can wonder how any of us made it to adulthood, we could also just be grateful that there are alternatives.

I've talked about this before with baseball and its resistance to change. Guys like Bill James thinks this occurs because some view baseball as "perfect" and why fix it when it's already a beautiful game. I don't think it's perfect.

When I think of 46/60 fields at 12U instead of 50/70, my opinion is "just because they didn't see the goofiness 30 years ago doesn't mean we have to keep going with it" or "Hey kids have physically changed, so the dimensions should change". Same deal as a boss, just because I might make a bad decision years ago doesn't mean we have to keep making the same bad decision in order to be "consistent".

If 50/70 is the better option, let's do it. If tradition is the only advantage has over 50/70, then 46/60 has to go. [1] It's not that big of a deal, [2] it is an improvement.

[HeinekenMan]

I often wonder how anyone in LL made it anywhere on the big field for all those years when there were only 46.60 and 60/90 fields.

Guys also excelled with web-less gloves at one point. I'm not concerned with why "most people" think 60 to 90 is a huge jump. Many people think their birth month will determine how their day goes.

It's not a coincidence that many kids quit playing when they make that huge jump to the larger field. By breaking that into a few smaller jumps, Little League is increasing the likelihood that a child will stick with the sport. It seems like that's something all baseball fans would support.

What's more important than the addition of a 50/70 program is educating kids and their parents about the difficulty entailed in making the move to the big field. I was ill-prepared when I made the move years ago. I was a chubby kid with poor throwing mechanics. I went from playing third base and starting every game to playing second base and sitting out a lot because I couldn't beat many throws to first base. I can still remember running down the first base line wondering if I was ever going to reach the bag.

[Encinitas]

I know our facility from back in Cali would have to do some alterations, the skate park is just behind the fence in RF and CF so you can't get to 225 and I really think you need the farther out fence to do the 50-70 or the outfield just looks too small. I suppose they could convert the main park for majors to minor A only where the rules probably wouldn't be as strict. We played all of our travel games on the next field over which had a 2nd home plate for 50 feet and 70 foot pegs. So they could move to that field. Once again all of this stuff is relative I much preferred the LL rec game to the 50-70 Pony league in town. As long as you supplemented with travel (assuming you saw your kid playing HS ball) on Sunday's and in the off-season it was fine. We just had a very competitive majors division limited to 72 kids, 6 teams of 12, so a lot of 11's were still playing Minor A if they couldn't make one of the teams, and thus the teams were much much deeper. Before LL changed the rule it wasn't unusual to have 3-4 12 year olds in Minor A as well, so the majors division was tough.

By the way when Shawn White was at the skate park good luck getting the kids to pay attention.

[lancers]

We played all of our travel games on the next field over which had a 2nd home plate for 50 feet and 70 foot pegs. So they could move to that field.

Ha, good memory on that field

[HeinekenMan]

Field alterations seem to be the major issue with this. I know the local league is planning to play on the 60/90 field. I think that's a huge mistake. They'll need to add a second mound in front of the main mound. Plus, how are they going to keep the bases in place without interrupting the path to the 90-footers? I suspect that there are similar issues for other cities. The Majors field is also used by Minors and coach-pitch teams. So that field is out of the question.

[scorekeeper]

I gotta admit that your opinion on this kinda pisses me off ... but only because you're a smart guy.

Medical research, as well as, journals full of information in exercise physiology tell us that smaller progressions are better than great big jumps.

So, if we have a choice, why not use smaller progressions. To not do just seems outright dumb to me.

We’re not talking about exercising here! We’re talking about playing baseball. It would be no different if the field were 80/120, the play on it would still be baseball. It just wouldn’t be baseball played to traditional standards. But sooner or later people would get used to a lower level of play, and for sure the players would get used playing on the larger field.

I say that as a dad whose wunderkid would only be enhanced by the big jump because the lesser athletes would be overwhelmed. So, if I were selfish, I'd be all for the big jumps because my kid could still pitch, still play every position (arm strength) and still hit the ball through the OF's. The smaller kids would be pushed off to the side. Sorry kid, we don't need 8 second basemen.

So why not just have you boy play on a 14U or 16U team? That way he’d have some decent competition?

The kids that would fold would be the kids that have been getting by with bloops and short throws ... in other words the undersized kids and ones with poor mechanics. I'm seeing this right now with the 12yo's that went to regionals in LLWs and them playing junior high ball (54/80). The studs are still the studs. The kids that looked impressive on the mound (the non-LLAS) from 46-feet aren't looking so hot from 54-feet. It's the cold hard slap of reality.

The trouble is, you incorrectly ASSUME that the same things would be happening next season, which doesn’t start for more than 6 months.

We did a whole bunch of stuff as kids that now has better/safer alternatives. While we can wonder how any of us made it to adulthood, we could also just be grateful that there are alternatives.

How is it SAFER playing baseball on an intermediate field?

I've talked about this before with baseball and its resistance to change. Guys like Bill James thinks this occurs because some view baseball as "perfect" and why fix it when it's already a beautiful game. I don't think it's perfect.

I don’t think its perfect either, but then again I don’t believe the way to fix it is for kids to play more games than professional players either.

When I think of 46/60 fields at 12U instead of 50/70, my opinion is "just because they didn't see the goofiness 30 years ago doesn't mean we have to keep going with it" or "Hey kids have physically changed, so the dimensions should change". Same deal as a boss, just because I might make a bad decision years ago doesn't mean we have to keep making the same bad decision in order to be "consistent".

I agree that many kids have physically changed, but that’s a far cry from ALL. There’s still quite a few “little” guys running around who’d be disadvantaged by going to a big field.

If 50/70 is the better option, let's do it. If tradition is the only advantage has over 50/70, then 46/60 has to go. [1] It's not that big of a deal, [2] it is an improvement.

No one says is isn’t, but once again you’re trying to instill a one size fits all, and that’s never the best answer to anything.