Why is there nothing between Rec and Low level travel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the sport is softball. At 12, all the girls should be seeing significant playing time on a low level travel team. I’d keep an eye out for a new team as they are not all like this.

Do you have any idea why she doesn’t play, skill wise? Has the coach said anything? Some batting or pitching lessons, or learning a new position to fill a defensive hole can be helpful. In terms of getting playing time.

Also, some of the teams at this age are straight up daddyball, or are simply an established group that has been playing together for years already (nearly impossible to break into the starting lineup).

I think the challenge is that even at the C level, its normal for coaches to just play 9 (or 10)on elimination day, and 2-3 girls sit.

So, OP's daughter may play on Saturday, but depending on where she bats in the line-up, may only get 1-2 plate appearances when the games when the games are capped at 80 minutes or the mercy rule ends the game early.

So from OP's perspective, they played 2 games on Saturday (and probably spent 8 hours at the field) for 3 at-bats, and then daughter may not have played at all on Sunday. But the coach's perspective is that she played in 2 out of the 3 (or 4) games of the weekend.

I get that frustration, even though its a part of the game

OP here. Yes, this is pretty much it. Since we are new to travel, it was a complete shock to us. Overall we like the team, girls, coaches, parents, etc. So we will probably let the year play out and then decide.

Fall ball is also kind of weird, as coaches are trying things out but there are usually fewer games to be played.

Depending on the team, she may play 40-50 games in the spring, and she'll still get a TON more at bats than she would have had she stayed in rec.

Also, early in the spring, hopefully your coach schedules some scrimmages. And in my opinion, a good coach maximizes scrimmages by playing with the line-up and getting those girls more ABs by putting them at the top of the line up.

I used to just do a continuous batting order for these doubleheader scrimmages. So if Game 1 ends with the No. 6 batter, the No. 7 batter leads off the next game.

Tournaments, though? Bat the roster on Saturday. Only the best 9 bat on Sunday, although who that best 9 are may depend on the pitching we face.

This does require a fair amount of managing parent expectations and communication. IME parents all say they are on board in the beginning but then the ones whose kids ride the bench more tend to get lippy and nasty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the sport is softball. At 12, all the girls should be seeing significant playing time on a low level travel team. I’d keep an eye out for a new team as they are not all like this.

Do you have any idea why she doesn’t play, skill wise? Has the coach said anything? Some batting or pitching lessons, or learning a new position to fill a defensive hole can be helpful. In terms of getting playing time.

Also, some of the teams at this age are straight up daddyball, or are simply an established group that has been playing together for years already (nearly impossible to break into the starting lineup).

I think the challenge is that even at the C level, its normal for coaches to just play 9 (or 10)on elimination day, and 2-3 girls sit.

So, OP's daughter may play on Saturday, but depending on where she bats in the line-up, may only get 1-2 plate appearances when the games when the games are capped at 80 minutes or the mercy rule ends the game early.

So from OP's perspective, they played 2 games on Saturday (and probably spent 8 hours at the field) for 3 at-bats, and then daughter may not have played at all on Sunday. But the coach's perspective is that she played in 2 out of the 3 (or 4) games of the weekend.

I get that frustration, even though its a part of the game

OP here. Yes, this is pretty much it. Since we are new to travel, it was a complete shock to us. Overall we like the team, girls, coaches, parents, etc. So we will probably let the year play out and then decide.

Fall ball is also kind of weird, as coaches are trying things out but there are usually fewer games to be played.

Depending on the team, she may play 40-50 games in the spring, and she'll still get a TON more at bats than she would have had she stayed in rec.

Also, early in the spring, hopefully your coach schedules some scrimmages. And in my opinion, a good coach maximizes scrimmages by playing with the line-up and getting those girls more ABs by putting them at the top of the line up.

I used to just do a continuous batting order for these doubleheader scrimmages. So if Game 1 ends with the No. 6 batter, the No. 7 batter leads off the next game.

Tournaments, though? Bat the roster on Saturday. Only the best 9 bat on Sunday, although who that best 9 are may depend on the pitching we face.

This does require a fair amount of managing parent expectations and communication. IME parents all say they are on board in the beginning but then the ones whose kids ride the bench more tend to get lippy and nasty.

I like that approach, with scrimmage double headers.

I also like "how you play on Saturday determines who plays on Sunday"

But that can be a challenge at the C level if there are only 2 pool games. It's hard to play well enough to earn a spot on Sunday if you only get 3 ABs. I think that approach is better suited for B & above.

There's also just the reality that on a team of 12/13 girls, there's going to be a depth chart. And its okay for the coach to balance winning & development. A program that is all development but no winning won't be a successful program. Which means that there are going to be times that girls sit.

But its hard. Especially the first year

[Anonymous]

After having 3 kids in travel baseball/softball (2 are now playing in high school), and seeing so many teams: IME 95% of playing time issues are created when the roster is set. Most youth teams carry too many kids, and this is often due to PARENT issues. Coaches are darned if they do, darned if they don’t. . If a coach tries to carry a smaller roster (say- 11), the team will end up short handed due to absences. If a coach rosters 13-14 somehow they will all show up to every.single.game. Kids and parents also often team hop, and bail at the last second if a better offer comes along (often after committing to the first team). Which makes larger rosters necessary. Parent philosophy seems to be “little Susie will miss tournaments for mundane reasons- despite having the schedule months in advance, but we will throw a fit if she doesn’t play all the time when she is there. Oh- and she doesn’t pitch or catch and has no desire to learn” All of which makes larger rosters necessary- just to have enough kids at tournaments, and to have enough pitching and catching. Also when kids bail last minute after committing to the team, coaches often add “filler” kids- as most kids are already committed elsewhere- just to round out the roster. Often those filler kids end up not seeing much playing time, and then the parents get (rightfully, perhaps) upset.

That is what I have seen over the years anyway- repeatedly. And no- I don’t coach and neither does my spouse. I don’t think coaches relish having kids sit the bench a lot at the youth level (and any potential drama that creates). Rather, they are often forced into tough roster situations by the choices of (some) parents- resulting in playing time issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After having 3 kids in travel baseball/softball (2 are now playing in high school), and seeing so many teams: IME 95% of playing time issues are created when the roster is set. Most youth teams carry too many kids, and this is often due to PARENT issues. Coaches are darned if they do, darned if they don’t. . If a coach tries to carry a smaller roster (say- 11), the team will end up short handed due to absences. If a coach rosters 13-14 somehow they will all show up to every.single.game. Kids and parents also often team hop, and bail at the last second if a better offer comes along (often after committing to the first team). Which makes larger rosters necessary. Parent philosophy seems to be “little Susie will miss tournaments for mundane reasons- despite having the schedule months in advance, but we will throw a fit if she doesn’t play all the time when she is there. Oh- and she doesn’t pitch or catch and has no desire to learn” All of which makes larger rosters necessary- just to have enough kids at tournaments, and to have enough pitching and catching. Also when kids bail last minute after committing to the team, coaches often add “filler” kids- as most kids are already committed elsewhere- just to round out the roster. Often those filler kids end up not seeing much playing time, and then the parents get (rightfully, perhaps) upset.

That is what I have seen over the years anyway- repeatedly. And no- I don’t coach and neither does my spouse. I don’t think coaches relish having kids sit the bench a lot at the youth level (and any potential drama that creates). Rather, they are often forced into tough roster situations by the choices of (some) parents- resulting in playing time issues.

You're not wrong.

Our coach decided to only carry 12 for that reason, but there are still 2 girl that have significantly fewer plate appearances than the girls that bat 1-3.

I was completely surprised by a competitive team in our area. B level. that only decided to carry 10. Tons of girls at the tryouts, but the coaches decided to just go with 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After having 3 kids in travel baseball/softball (2 are now playing in high school), and seeing so many teams: IME 95% of playing time issues are created when the roster is set. Most youth teams carry too many kids, and this is often due to PARENT issues. Coaches are darned if they do, darned if they don’t. . If a coach tries to carry a smaller roster (say- 11), the team will end up short handed due to absences. If a coach rosters 13-14 somehow they will all show up to every.single.game. Kids and parents also often team hop, and bail at the last second if a better offer comes along (often after committing to the first team). Which makes larger rosters necessary. Parent philosophy seems to be “little Susie will miss tournaments for mundane reasons- despite having the schedule months in advance, but we will throw a fit if she doesn’t play all the time when she is there. Oh- and she doesn’t pitch or catch and has no desire to learn” All of which makes larger rosters necessary- just to have enough kids at tournaments, and to have enough pitching and catching. Also when kids bail last minute after committing to the team, coaches often add “filler” kids- as most kids are already committed elsewhere- just to round out the roster. Often those filler kids end up not seeing much playing time, and then the parents get (rightfully, perhaps) upset.

That is what I have seen over the years anyway- repeatedly. And no- I don’t coach and neither does my spouse. I don’t think coaches relish having kids sit the bench a lot at the youth level (and any potential drama that creates). Rather, they are often forced into tough roster situations by the choices of (some) parents- resulting in playing time issues.

I despise coaches like that. If a kid is good enough to make the team, they should be good enough to play. If they aren't good enough to play, they shouldn't make the team

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After having 3 kids in travel baseball/softball (2 are now playing in high school), and seeing so many teams: IME 95% of playing time issues are created when the roster is set. Most youth teams carry too many kids, and this is often due to PARENT issues. Coaches are darned if they do, darned if they don’t. . If a coach tries to carry a smaller roster (say- 11), the team will end up short handed due to absences. If a coach rosters 13-14 somehow they will all show up to every.single.game. Kids and parents also often team hop, and bail at the last second if a better offer comes along (often after committing to the first team). Which makes larger rosters necessary. Parent philosophy seems to be “little Susie will miss tournaments for mundane reasons- despite having the schedule months in advance, but we will throw a fit if she doesn’t play all the time when she is there. Oh- and she doesn’t pitch or catch and has no desire to learn” All of which makes larger rosters necessary- just to have enough kids at tournaments, and to have enough pitching and catching. Also when kids bail last minute after committing to the team, coaches often add “filler” kids- as most kids are already committed elsewhere- just to round out the roster. Often those filler kids end up not seeing much playing time, and then the parents get (rightfully, perhaps) upset.

That is what I have seen over the years anyway- repeatedly. And no- I don’t coach and neither does my spouse. I don’t think coaches relish having kids sit the bench a lot at the youth level (and any potential drama that creates). Rather, they are often forced into tough roster situations by the choices of (some) parents- resulting in playing time issues.

I despise coaches like that. If a kid is good enough to make the team, they should be good enough to play. If they aren't good enough to play, they shouldn't make the team

This is my thought too. Its too time consuming and precluding of other activities to not really play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After having 3 kids in travel baseball/softball (2 are now playing in high school), and seeing so many teams: IME 95% of playing time issues are created when the roster is set. Most youth teams carry too many kids, and this is often due to PARENT issues. Coaches are darned if they do, darned if they don’t. . If a coach tries to carry a smaller roster (say- 11), the team will end up short handed due to absences. If a coach rosters 13-14 somehow they will all show up to every.single.game. Kids and parents also often team hop, and bail at the last second if a better offer comes along (often after committing to the first team). Which makes larger rosters necessary. Parent philosophy seems to be “little Susie will miss tournaments for mundane reasons- despite having the schedule months in advance, but we will throw a fit if she doesn’t play all the time when she is there. Oh- and she doesn’t pitch or catch and has no desire to learn” All of which makes larger rosters necessary- just to have enough kids at tournaments, and to have enough pitching and catching. Also when kids bail last minute after committing to the team, coaches often add “filler” kids- as most kids are already committed elsewhere- just to round out the roster. Often those filler kids end up not seeing much playing time, and then the parents get (rightfully, perhaps) upset.

That is what I have seen over the years anyway- repeatedly. And no- I don’t coach and neither does my spouse. I don’t think coaches relish having kids sit the bench a lot at the youth level (and any potential drama that creates). Rather, they are often forced into tough roster situations by the choices of (some) parents- resulting in playing time issues.

I despise coaches like that. If a kid is good enough to make the team, they should be good enough to play. If they aren't good enough to play, they shouldn't make the team

This is my thought too. Its too time consuming and precluding of other activities to not really play.

I get what you're saying, but it also depends on the age.

By 13/14, some coaches want to prepare their kids to play for HS or ultimately, play in college.

And part of that is competing for a spot in the line up or coming off the bench to play.

But I agree that in 12 and below, it should be more about development and more equal playing time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After having 3 kids in travel baseball/softball (2 are now playing in high school), and seeing so many teams: IME 95% of playing time issues are created when the roster is set. Most youth teams carry too many kids, and this is often due to PARENT issues. Coaches are darned if they do, darned if they don’t. . If a coach tries to carry a smaller roster (say- 11), the team will end up short handed due to absences. If a coach rosters 13-14 somehow they will all show up to every.single.game. Kids and parents also often team hop, and bail at the last second if a better offer comes along (often after committing to the first team). Which makes larger rosters necessary. Parent philosophy seems to be “little Susie will miss tournaments for mundane reasons- despite having the schedule months in advance, but we will throw a fit if she doesn’t play all the time when she is there. Oh- and she doesn’t pitch or catch and has no desire to learn” All of which makes larger rosters necessary- just to have enough kids at tournaments, and to have enough pitching and catching. Also when kids bail last minute after committing to the team, coaches often add “filler” kids- as most kids are already committed elsewhere- just to round out the roster. Often those filler kids end up not seeing much playing time, and then the parents get (rightfully, perhaps) upset.

That is what I have seen over the years anyway- repeatedly. And no- I don’t coach and neither does my spouse. I don’t think coaches relish having kids sit the bench a lot at the youth level (and any potential drama that creates). Rather, they are often forced into tough roster situations by the choices of (some) parents- resulting in playing time issues.

I despise coaches like that. If a kid is good enough to make the team, they should be good enough to play. If they aren't good enough to play, they shouldn't make the team

This is my thought too. Its too time consuming and precluding of other activities to not really play.

I get what you're saying, but it also depends on the age.

By 13/14, some coaches want to prepare their kids to play for HS or ultimately, play in college.

And part of that is competing for a spot in the line up or coming off the bench to play.

But I agree that in 12 and below, it should be more about development and more equal playing time

Definitely agree with this, but it’s a fine line IMO….it’s one thing to play 50-70% of the time for example, and another to rarely get in at all. My 13u DS is on a baseball team that rosters 14, and 2 boys rarely play. MAYBE 2 at bats and a few innings in the field per tournament (3-4 games +). If they are lucky. I feel bad for them, and their parents- who probably didn’t expect this. They’d be developmentally better off moving to a lower level team IMO, and I honestly don’t understand why coaches add kids to the roster and don’t play them at all. If it were my kid, I’d rather be told “thanks, but no thanks” upfront, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After having 3 kids in travel baseball/softball (2 are now playing in high school), and seeing so many teams: IME 95% of playing time issues are created when the roster is set. Most youth teams carry too many kids, and this is often due to PARENT issues. Coaches are darned if they do, darned if they don’t. . If a coach tries to carry a smaller roster (say- 11), the team will end up short handed due to absences. If a coach rosters 13-14 somehow they will all show up to every.single.game. Kids and parents also often team hop, and bail at the last second if a better offer comes along (often after committing to the first team). Which makes larger rosters necessary. Parent philosophy seems to be “little Susie will miss tournaments for mundane reasons- despite having the schedule months in advance, but we will throw a fit if she doesn’t play all the time when she is there. Oh- and she doesn’t pitch or catch and has no desire to learn” All of which makes larger rosters necessary- just to have enough kids at tournaments, and to have enough pitching and catching. Also when kids bail last minute after committing to the team, coaches often add “filler” kids- as most kids are already committed elsewhere- just to round out the roster. Often those filler kids end up not seeing much playing time, and then the parents get (rightfully, perhaps) upset.

That is what I have seen over the years anyway- repeatedly. And no- I don’t coach and neither does my spouse. I don’t think coaches relish having kids sit the bench a lot at the youth level (and any potential drama that creates). Rather, they are often forced into tough roster situations by the choices of (some) parents- resulting in playing time issues.

I despise coaches like that. If a kid is good enough to make the team, they should be good enough to play. If they aren't good enough to play, they shouldn't make the team

This is my thought too. Its too time consuming and precluding of other activities to not really play.

I get what you're saying, but it also depends on the age.

By 13/14, some coaches want to prepare their kids to play for HS or ultimately, play in college.

And part of that is competing for a spot in the line up or coming off the bench to play.

But I agree that in 12 and below, it should be more about development and more equal playing time

Definitely agree with this, but it’s a fine line IMO….it’s one thing to play 50-70% of the time for example, and another to rarely get in at all. My 13u DS is on a baseball team that rosters 14, and 2 boys rarely play. MAYBE 2 at bats and a few innings in the field per tournament (3-4 games +). If they are lucky. I feel bad for them, and their parents- who probably didn’t expect this. They’d be developmentally better off moving to a lower level team IMO, and I honestly don’t understand why coaches add kids to the roster and don’t play them at all. If it were my kid, I’d rather be told “thanks, but no thanks” upfront, I think.

The flip side is...the bigger the team, the fewer chances to play if you play everyone. DDs team has a roster of 14. That means kids are sitting two innings in many games, and bat 2x each. Not sure how much they get out of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. For us it’s softball, I’d rather not say where specifically but in Nova.

Most local leagues in Fairfax County have House+. I will say at the level my DD played (not 12U), it was...not as good as our top house team at the same level across the board, however. But it's supposed to be situated exactly between house and travel. NVGSA has Dimensions, AGSA has Spirit, VGSL has Raiders, SYC had something, and BRYC had something. In spring I also know at least one Loudoun team had something. I haven't seen anything in Prince William but maybe I've just missed it?

If you aren't in one of the above, then ask your league to spin up House+ and reach out to the various leagues I mentioned and find House+ teams in spring. House+ is pretty ad hoc - coaches call each other up and schedule games. All this just requires people who are willing to organize it.

Summer All-Stars looks fun because some leagues do C level travel tournaments as part of that. House+ can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the sport is softball. At 12, all the girls should be seeing significant playing time on a low level travel team. I’d keep an eye out for a new team as they are not all like this.

Do you have any idea why she doesn’t play, skill wise? Has the coach said anything? Some batting or pitching lessons, or learning a new position to fill a defensive hole can be helpful. In terms of getting playing time.

Also, some of the teams at this age are straight up daddyball, or are simply an established group that has been playing together for years already (nearly impossible to break into the starting lineup).

I think the challenge is that even at the C level, its normal for coaches to just play 9 (or 10)on elimination day, and 2-3 girls sit.

So, OP's daughter may play on Saturday, but depending on where she bats in the line-up, may only get 1-2 plate appearances when the games when the games are capped at 80 minutes or the mercy rule ends the game early.

So from OP's perspective, they played 2 games on Saturday (and probably spent 8 hours at the field) for 3 at-bats, and then daughter may not have played at all on Sunday. But the coach's perspective is that she played in 2 out of the 3 (or 4) games of the weekend.

I get that frustration, even though its a part of the game

OP here. Yes, this is pretty much it. Since we are new to travel, it was a complete shock to us. Overall we like the team, girls, coaches, parents, etc. So we will probably let the year play out and then decide.

Fall ball is also kind of weird, as coaches are trying things out but there are usually fewer games to be played.

Depending on the team, she may play 40-50 games in the spring, and she'll still get a TON more at bats than she would have had she stayed in rec.

Also, early in the spring, hopefully your coach schedules some scrimmages. And in my opinion, a good coach maximizes scrimmages by playing with the line-up and getting those girls more ABs by putting them at the top of the line up.

wut? good lord, how long is the spring season?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the sport is softball. At 12, all the girls should be seeing significant playing time on a low level travel team. I’d keep an eye out for a new team as they are not all like this.

Do you have any idea why she doesn’t play, skill wise? Has the coach said anything? Some batting or pitching lessons, or learning a new position to fill a defensive hole can be helpful. In terms of getting playing time.

Also, some of the teams at this age are straight up daddyball, or are simply an established group that has been playing together for years already (nearly impossible to break into the starting lineup).

I think the challenge is that even at the C level, its normal for coaches to just play 9 (or 10)on elimination day, and 2-3 girls sit.

So, OP's daughter may play on Saturday, but depending on where she bats in the line-up, may only get 1-2 plate appearances when the games when the games are capped at 80 minutes or the mercy rule ends the game early.

So from OP's perspective, they played 2 games on Saturday (and probably spent 8 hours at the field) for 3 at-bats, and then daughter may not have played at all on Sunday. But the coach's perspective is that she played in 2 out of the 3 (or 4) games of the weekend.

I get that frustration, even though its a part of the game

OP here. Yes, this is pretty much it. Since we are new to travel, it was a complete shock to us. Overall we like the team, girls, coaches, parents, etc. So we will probably let the year play out and then decide.

Fall ball is also kind of weird, as coaches are trying things out but there are usually fewer games to be played.

Depending on the team, she may play 40-50 games in the spring, and she'll still get a TON more at bats than she would have had she stayed in rec.

Also, early in the spring, hopefully your coach schedules some scrimmages. And in my opinion, a good coach maximizes scrimmages by playing with the line-up and getting those girls more ABs by putting them at the top of the line up.

wut? good lord, how long is the spring season?

It'll start in March wish scrimmages, and then depending on the age, games will start in April and go through the end of July.

If you're doing league play, that's 2 games a week. Then mix in tournaments where you'll have anywhere from 3 (C level) to 4 (B level) game minimums for the weekends. But if you win, it could be 3 games on Saturday and then 3 games on Sunday.

Then, over long weekends, some tournaments offer a 5 game minimum.

It adds up

[Anonymous]

OP, I hear you. That was us. I have written about our experience on here before. Gave Travel a try at age 9, age 11, and again at age 14 after vowing to never say the words "travel softball" in our house again. In between we did one of the travel lite options noted above (Vienna Raiders and Rec All Stars, Batting lessons, the whole schebang). Us parents really thought the Travel Lite was the best option--kid was still a standout, got a few tournament experiences, played a prime position in all games, and we knew and fit in well with the parents/kids. Kid preferred the travel team due to the efficiency of practice (not teaching anyone how to catch/throw/slide repeatedly) and the equipment, uniforms, swag (I kid you not) and didn't really care about the lack of playing time until the 16 U team when it was a bit bothersome but still not a dealbreaker for her. ALL the teams had a dad coach and a core group of 6-7 girls who had been with him for several years and would have difficulty getting displaced from their positions by a newcomer.
No advice, just empathy. Kid has moved on to other extracurriculars now...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. For us it’s softball, I’d rather not say where specifically but in Nova.

Softball mom here. It’s hard. I won’t let her do travel because I too need a life and we don’t know if she will do it in college. But even still, in high school her rec team has kids swinging at balls above their heads and not fully understating the game. It’s beyond frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Recommend NVGSA, if that’s near you, whether or not you do Rec+ (Dimensions). The organization and level of play is high while still being welcoming to beginners. The kids all take it seriously and want to be there at the 12u level.