Ask Baseball America By James Bailey

Short-season Leagues

As discussed earlier, the New York-Penn League made a few swaps with the Eastern League and lost Mahoning Valley to the Ohio Central League. Binghamton, New Britain and New Haven might find more success here, relative to their lower gate expectations.

July 19, 2000

We have a special Wednesday update to Ask BA this week, giving John Manuel a forum to present his view of the college ball vs. Rookie ball argument. Here it is:

Comparing the level of pro ball to college baseball is extremely difficult, starting with the difference and bats and the difference in money. The first thing I'll say is college baseball, to me, is a lot more interesting because it matters who wins the games. Does anyone have a vested interest in Martinsville vs. Pulaski, or Ogden vs. Helena (where both teams are in the same organization)? That to me makes the intensity and quality of play--not necessarily the caliber--infinitely better in college baseball. Players dream of playing for LSU or USC. They don't dream of playing for Burlington, N.C.
I'll also agree with James that any comparison of college ball to Double-A is a joke. There might be four or five players in the country who could step into Double-A in a good year, but not usually. Pat Burrell didn't play Double-A in his first pro year, and neither did Eric Munson, the first two college players picked in the draft in 1998 and 1999. The first picks in 2000, righthanders Adam Johnson and Justin Wayne, have both been sent to the Class A Florida State League.
Pro teams aren't limited by anyone in how they acquire players, which college teams have to shoe-horn in a lot of lesser players onto teams (i.e., walk-ons and players who don't even want to play pro ball) onto their rosters. That said, I think you have to base any comparison on what college teams put out there for their weekend series, because that's what they are built for. If college coaches had to build their teams for six-seven games a week (and some do, in leagues in colder climates such as the Big 10, Big East and Missouri Valley), their clubs would look very different, with all of their scholarship money likely going to pitchers, instead of current rates of about 70 percent.
Anyway, I think NCAA tournament teams at the Division I level would fare well in a three-game series against a low Class A team, and I think your top-echelon teams, such as LSU, Stanford, etc., will put up a fight in the Carolina League, Cal League and FSL. I think those teams would beat most of your Appy and Pioneer League teams. (Of course a manager in the Appy League would think it's better than college ball! He probably got turned down for a college job that would have paid a lot more and involved a lot less travel.)
But over a full season of 50 games in the Appy League, with wood bats, the level of talent in Rookie ball is generally going to be higher than it is on a college team.
Basically, the biggest difference in the way John and I view the question is in defining it. I think in order to make a valid comparison the college team should come over and play a 68- or 76-game schedule like the Appy and Pioneer Leagues, with almost no days off. John wanted to bring the Rookie teams into the college environment, where they would play a big weekend series and maybe a meaningless midweek game or two. The college schedule obviously helps the thinner college teams, which don't have the pitching depth to play every day.
We both agree that we don't disagree by much, because we can see the other one's point. But what fun would things be if everyone agreed on everything all the time. This episode has hatched the idea for future point-counterpoint debates on Baseball America Online. So be on the lookout for more in-fighting, er, reasoned debate.

July 18, 2000

This could be a record for longest Ask BA, and there are just three questions today. If you happen to be interested in the topics, you like it because there's plenty for you to read. If you're not, well, see you Thursday.

How would you judge the quality of play in a good college conference compared to professional rookie leagues?
Dan Jensen, Claremore, OK
I actually had this same conversation a couple of weeks ago with a manager in the Appalachian League. We seemed to be in agreement that the advanced rookie leagues (Appalachian and Pioneer--not the complex leagues) are on the whole probably slightly ahead of the top college conferences. It's possible that I could hear about this from a colleague or two down the hall, but I'll stick with my answer no matter what John Manuel says.
I've heard the argument that most college players who sign pro contracts debut in low Class A or short-season Class A leagues, so college ball must be the equivalent of A ball. (I've also heard that stretched to Double-A, but that's a complete joke.) It's not that simple. You have to factor in more than just the college juniors and seniors who sign contracts every year if you're going to make a valid comparison. Every college program includes freshmen and sophomores who are not as polished as the upper classmen, as well as a lot of players who will never play pro ball.
Of course, there are a lot of young talented players in advanced Rookie leagues that might not play every day in a top college program. They would likely be sitting the bench their first season or two in college, but they're in the lineup in the Rookie leagues and they're likely to make a few errors and have their share of struggles at the plate.
The raw rookies aren't the only ones out there, however, because many players in the Rookie leagues are actually college products, some from top programs that regularly reach Omaha. Each team in the Appy League is allowed twelve 21-year-olds, while each Pioneer League team is entitled to 17. So you have several teams out there, especially in organizations that have a complex league in addition to an advanced Rookie club, that field lineups that regularly include 4-5 college players. There are a lot of juco players on the rosters as well.
One concession to make in favor of the colleges is there are no Jason Youngs or Justin Waynes in the Rookie leagues. Those guys skip right past. But there aren't really too many pitchers like that in college, either.
Most colleges are lucky to have one guy like that, typically their Friday starter. College teams generally play three big games a week, plus one or two nonconference games. Their pitching staffs are set up for a three-man rotation, with each starter throwing once a week. For the purpose of this argument try to adapt an imaginary college team to the world of everyday play and you'll see that their pitching staffs thin out in a hurry. The starters would no longer be throwing 130 pitches a game, so they'd need to get into that vulnerable bullpen.
Outside of slipping a couple of college teams into the Pioneer League there's really no way to settle the debate for sure, but that's what makes it a fun theoretical argument. Thanks for the question, Dan.
I was curious as to why your publication does not cover junior college baseball. I play junior college baseball in Tampa. The pitchers that we faced this year threw harder than most of the pitchers in the College World Series. I throw 94 mph, but due to the chance to sign as a freshman or sophomore, I opted for junior college.
Many people think junior colleges are for players with a lower skill level. In fact, junior college is a haven for draftees who don't sign. I was just wondering if there was a reason that you choose not to cover junior college. Even if you didn't cover it regularly, a list of top Juco players or some articles would definitely give people the right idea about it. Just because I don't attend a big school, which I will after my two years of Juco, I don't think that I should be slighted attention when I am as good as or better than many of the players named in your magazine.
ThrowHeat2020@aol.com
The reason we don't cover junior college ball in any depth boils down to resources. We simply don't have the manpower to do it. We have two college writers who focus primarily on Division I schools, because that's where the majority of our reader interest seems to lie.
With our relatively small staff, we rely heavily on correspondents to cover different levels of baseball for us. For example, we have a correspondent for each minor league, each major league team, each foreign league, etc. But we can't set up a similar operation with the small colleges, because there's just no one out there who covers them in any detail.
It would be nice to see that change in the coming years, because there's a lot of good baseball being played at non-DI schools and there are a lot of pro prospects out there. Don't take it as a personal slight that we don't give you or your school any coverage. We know you're out there. We just don't have the resources to cover everything.
My son played baseball for our recreation dept. in our small town. He sat on the bench more than he played. He's 9, in his first year of playing. He attended all scheduled practices. Most of the boys on his team have played for years, with the exception of my son and another little boy. These two boys sat on the bench most of all games.
My problem is it's recreation where all children should be treated fairly and be able to play. They didn't have to try out or meet certain requirements to make the team. It isn't a private team. I think it should be more about child development, than winning. Baseball in my little town is politics, on the Who's Who of baseball. You would think it's the professionals playing out there.
I am a lover of baseball myself, but not with playing for the recreation dept. My rec dept says they agree, so we'll see if they do anything, or make any changes for next year. I would love to hear your comments or suggestions.
Connie Pitts, Eatonton, Ga.
I guess I can answer this with perspective of both the kid who rode the bench in Little League and a coach who occasionally had a semi-regular bench squad.
It's disappointing to see kids as young as 9 being stuck on the bench consistently. It's easy to understand why so many kids give up on team sports at an early age. It is supposed to be about fun, especially in the early years, and it's not much fun for a kid to be the designated bench warmer at 9 years old.
Like many other rabid baseball fans out there, I was not the most gifted player in cleats in my Little League days. I only played organized baseball for two years, when I was 12-13. I was well behind most of the other boys having started so late, but my first year I didn't do too badly because the league I played in dropped me down a level to play with mostly younger kids. I did pretty well that year, pitching and playing just about everywhere, including shortstop--as a lefty. Not that there were many 6-4-3 double plays turned on a regular basis.
My second year, was a different story. Little League is set up so 13-year-olds move to the big diamond and I had to jump basically two levels, because I was behind the year before. I generally got my two innings and one at-bat and felt lucky if I could coach first base after that.
The reality of youth sports is that in most cases the children who are not as talented are not going to play as much. That's not really fair, but it's the way life works, especially as kids get older. It's a shame that it would already be the case with 9-year-old kids, because I'd have to guess that in most cases there isn't that much difference between the talent level of the boys out there.
Two things are likely to happen when kids become the designated bench warmer at that age: one, they won't improve as much as the other boys and fall further behind, or two, they'll quit playing. And the shame of that is, that since some kids are just late bloomers, perhaps they'll give up on a sport before they might have otherwise caught up to their peers.
Perhaps what youth sports needs is a level for kids who just aren't quite as good as the others. It might seem like a stigma to be in the lesser league, but if the tradeoff is a comfortable environment for kids to learn and have fun, I think I wouldn't mind my child playing there. I should have been in a league like that myself. Not all kids are going to make the varsity team in high school, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't enjoy playing.
I don't want to make this sound like I think every coach out there who doesn't split the playing time up evenly is a bad person. There are surely some that play favorites, but there can be more to it than that. I have to confess there were certain kids on our teams that got more bench time than others. We were coaching 13- and 14-year-olds, and by that age there is a bigger difference in ability level. We tried not to base our decisions strictly on that, however.
Attitude and enthusiasm were more important than ability in deciding playing time for us. A big part of a kid's attitude is desire, and there were a couple of kids I can remember that didn't have much of that. They were really not very good ballplayers, but they didn't really seem to want to improve, either. After three months of practice they'd still prefer to let a fly ball drop in front of them and pick it up and throw it in then try to catch it. They'd still prefer not to swing the bat when it was their turn to hit. And it's hard to feel like a child that's not making much effort during the game deserves to take playing time away from a child that plays like he really loves to play.
Sometimes I wondered when I was coaching if some of the kids who were out there even wanted to be there. Or if they went out for baseball because their parents thought it would be a good way for them to make friends or just interact with other kids. There were definitely a few that seemed to have no interest in playing the game.
So before you get upset that your child is not playing much, ask him if he really wants to. It's possible he doesn't like playing at all and is just doing it because you suggested it.
It's also possible that he loves to play, and he's just as disappointed as you are that he's not getting his fair share of playing time. If that's the case, I'd strongly suggest seeking out a new team for him. If you're in a small town it might be difficult to find other options. But if you know other parents who are disappointed with their children's opportunities, perhaps you can help organize a couple of teams for kids who just want to play and haven't been getting the chance in the existing leagues. Then you can create an environment where participation and fun are stressed over winning, and in the end your child is likely to improve his skills more that way.

Directory: mlb
mlb -> By Ken Gurnick
mlb -> Los angeles dodgers clips
mlb -> 2010 – What’s the name of the umpire whose errant call cost the Tigers’ Armando Galarraga a perfect game in 2010? (Jim Joyce) gabp
mlb -> Wednesday, September 23, 2015 headlines: Verrett stumbles in the fifth as Mets lose to Braves 6-2
mlb -> All-Star History In what city was the first All-Game played? (Chicago, 1933) Baseball & Pop Culture
mlb -> Los angeles dodgers clips
mlb -> Los angeles dodgers clips
mlb -> Los angeles dodgers clips
mlb -> The Impact of Television Revenue on Major League Baseball
mlb -> Los angeles dodgers clips

Download 1 Mb.

Share with your friends: