Jump to content


Photo

LL format - ratio of full redraft to retention + waivers question


15 replies to this topic

#1 ep_143

ep_143

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 10:39 AM

Our league is likely to expand from 12 to 14 Majors teams for the upcoming Spring.  We use the retention method which has historically worked well for our league and is a big part of our culture.  However, with the 16 month bubble class coming up, we will likely need to expand again in 2018 and then contract in 2019.  Practically, I believe a full redraft method should be employed for our league in 2017, 2018 and 2019 where we move back to retention in 2019.  But there's that culture issue.

 

My question is, does anyone have a general idea of % of leagues nationally use the full redraft method?  More specifically, what % of 2 or more charter leagues use the full redraft method?  I have talked to area LL's who have said their league has moved to the full redraft method in the past 1-10 years.  It's a small sample size that responded (~20), but ~65-70% that are full re-draft.

 

One other question- historically, our league has used waivers to move LL12s down to Minors.  In our view, it's typically not many- usually between 2-10% that are either ( a ) clearly safety risks or ( b ) the player clearly prefers to play AAA over Majors and would not be a safety risk to the 10/11s.  With that said, in your view, does that % of waivers seem high?  Does anyone have an idea what % of leagues use waivers for LL12s?

 

All thoughts/answers greatly appreciated.



#2 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,091 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 08 December 2016 - 01:28 PM

Plan A (player retention) is for a normal draft, it is NOT an approved Plan for either Expansion or Reduction.

I guess you could ask for a Waiver to use Plan A to Expand or Reduce the number of teams but you would need to describe exactly how you would do it.

Who knows, LL might approve it!

 

So, absent a Waiver, you need to use one of the Expansion Plans in 2017 and 2018 and then one of the Team Reduction Plans in 2019.

That said, I do know of leagues that Re-Draft every year that have gotten permission (Waiver) to use Plan B/Alternate Plan B to Expand and/or Reduce the number of teams based on the number of players that year.

In my opinion, they should list Plan B, Alternate Plan B and Plan C as "acceptable" Plans for Expansion/Reduction.

 

 

As for Re-Drafting, to my knowledge, 12 of the 14 leagues in my District Re-Draft every year using Plan B or Alternate Plan B - I prefer Alternate Plan B.

 

 

As for 12s in Minors, 2% doesn't sound too bad (safety reasons) but 10% sounds way too high (at least it does to me).

I go back to my years with PONY, if PONY can have ALL 11s and 12s play together why do so many Little Leagues have a problem doing it?

Yes, there are some "safety issues" which is why I personally have no problem Waiving "a few" 12s to minors but in my opinion there should only be a few, no where near 10%.

I asked my DA and he said that last year he approved 19 Waivers for 12s to play in minors, that's 19 Waivers for 14 leagues. 


  • rsnyder6, Plesh and ep_143 like this

#3 Plesh

Plesh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • LocationNorthern New Jersey

Posted 08 December 2016 - 01:35 PM

I did some research last winter and found that out about 20% of the leagues in our district use Plan A (i.e. keeper league).

The rest use Alt Plan B.

I have to think it's probably close to that on average across the nation, with more leagues moving to Alt Plan B.

 

I think a keeper league is great if you have dedicated managers/ coaches and your league culture is focused towards that, but Alt Plan B is simple and helps ensure parity.

 

In our league I don't think we've ever moved a 12 down to Minors.

Now we don't have a AAA/ high minors level like you do, but most of the time the weaker kids are playing mostly because they want to be with their friends and that's something we don't want to take away from them.

Especially since, for the 12s, it's probably their last year playing baseball for most of them.


  • ep_143 likes this

#4 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 08 December 2016 - 03:58 PM

I think there are a number of questions on league options that it would be nice to survey the leagues on.

You won't ever get 100 percent participation, but it would be good to have some sort of data set on local "option" items like:

 

Draft Method

CBO

One foot in the box (as we put it in this year)

Age-guided vs. talent-driven divisions


  • ep_143 likes this

#5 Lou Barbieri

Lou Barbieri

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,091 posts
  • LocationThe Villages, Florida

Posted 08 December 2016 - 04:22 PM

OK, I'll start:

 

Draft Method: Alternate Plan B

 

CBO - we use it in Tee-Ball, minors and majors but not any division above majors (CBO in all divisions in Interleague Games)

 

One foot in the box - No for Regular Season (that said, it is part of game management by the Umpires)

 

Age-Guided vs talent-driven divisions: Both !!!

We have 9-10s (competitive minors) and 11-12s (majors).

That said, we allow 1-2 of the better 8s per team to be "drafted up" to 9-10s and 1-2 of the better 10s to be "drafted up" to 11-12s.

We also allow a few lesser skilled 11s to play down in 9-10s.

Very few, if any, 12s in minors.



#6 Plesh

Plesh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • LocationNorthern New Jersey

Posted 08 December 2016 - 04:37 PM

Draft: We use Plan B for first year leagues (divide kids up evenly)

 

CBO: every level

 

OFITB: No way is one foot in the box isn't happening during the regular season

 

Divisions: Mostly by age, but we try to push as many 8s to Minors (9-10) and 10s to Majors (11-12) as possible after evals.

Maybe one or two 11 year olds play Minors (first year players), but never any 12s.



#7 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 08 December 2016 - 05:52 PM

Uh.... I meant a survey monkey out of Williamsport. Something with actual science to it. LOL



#8 Guest_Lou Barbieri_*

Guest_Lou Barbieri_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 December 2016 - 05:59 PM

"Survey Monkey" and "Williamsport" - that seems appropriate !!!     :D

 

With your Williamsport "connections" maybe you could get them to get a survey like this going?



#9 Mike_Hirschman

Mike_Hirschman

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,325 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 08 December 2016 - 06:15 PM

Connections?

Don't believe everything on the internet. :-P



#10 coach andy

coach andy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 258 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 08:13 PM

Alternate Plan B - really think this is best.  parity (or at least managers cannot blame anything but luck or themselves if teams are unbalanced), and expansion/contraction is super easy/simple (ie registration numbers each year dictate how many teams in each division, get needed # of managers signed on, draft, play ball)

 

CBO in majors and below in softball and baseball, juniors softball is not CBO, and not certain how baseball does 50/70 and up, suspect 50/70 is CBO at least for regular season, but juniors and seniors are not (not even certain we have juniors, think it is all seniors until AS)

 

Division are mostly by age, with numbers driven (ie to round out decent sized rosters) spaces for younger ages to play up.  unless things get screwed up for political reasons (ie like more 12s in junior softball last year than majors, more 10s in majors than minors, 7s in minors)



#11 amutz

amutz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 889 posts
  • LocationNorCal

Posted 08 December 2016 - 09:58 PM

Draft Method: Alternate Plan B

 

CBO - All divisions up to our local end of season tournament.  Majors goes to 'normal sub rules' for tournament.

 

One foot in the box - Nope

 

Age-Guided vs talent-driven divisions: yes (both)

Majors is mostly 11/12 with some 10s

High minors is mostly 10/11 with some 9s



#12 Jamief

Jamief

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 11:06 PM

Draft: alternate plan B (AAA / minors ). Never had more than 1 juniors or seniors. May have to draft this season and next.

Always CBO

One foot in box: nope and not a huge fan.

Both Age / skill. Majors all 12s, most 11s, few 10s

AAA: few weak 11s, most 10s, many 9s, few 8s

Balance out AA and A with the rest.

#13 Guest_MyThreeSons_*

Guest_MyThreeSons_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 December 2016 - 11:49 PM

Draft: Alt Plan B is probably the best way to balance the teams. We let the Managers pick the kids based on evaluations.

CBO: we use it in Majors and below

One foot in the Box: NO!!!!!

Age Guided vs Talent Level:
Coach Pitch age 7 & 8: maybe 1-3 kids that are 6 and ready.
Minors: we use age 9&10 and have 4 team. Only two league age 8yr old kids played in minors. The new age determination date really affected this. We only had two league age 11 yr olds play minors
Majors: we age use age 11&12 and have 4 teams. We had four league age 10 kids in majors and two of them should have stayed in Minors.

#14 ep_143

ep_143

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 09 December 2016 - 09:17 AM

All- thank you for your responses.  They will be helpful in showing how the broad LL community has evolved over time to our passionate local community.  Not that we need to fully become what the LLI (general) standard is, but it will help soften the blow if we need to use expansion option 1 vs 3 for the next two years.  To Mike's point, it would be great to see some local option numbers on a national level and see how LL's have changed over time.

 

Thank you for sharing years and years of experience on these boards.  As a first year board member, I can't tell you how helpful it has been to read these threads.


  • Plesh likes this

#15 Guest_LL Prez_*

Guest_LL Prez_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 December 2016 - 02:59 PM

If expanding, I'd go with Option 1 (Re-Draft starting from scratch).

I'm not in favor of Options 2 or 3 because I don't like existing teams "giving up players" to be drafted by the new team(s).
Why, because 1) what does that tell the players that were "released" and 2) since the existing teams will obviously give up their weaker players the new team(s) start off with lesser skilled players than the existing teams (team imbalance).

So go with Expansion Option 1.
Have the managers draw out of a hat to determine the draft order.
Use a serpentine draft (1,2,3,4, 4,3,2,1, 1,2,3,4, 4,3,2,1,...).
Also, make sure that all "returning players" get drafted.
Basically, it's the same as an Alternate Plan B Redraft!

#16 rsnyder6

rsnyder6

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 10 December 2016 - 06:08 AM

Draft Method: Alternate Plan B

 

CBO - every division

 

One foot in the box - No 

 

Age-Guided vs talent-driven divisions: Mostly Age


Occasionally a 10 in Majors, usually a younger sibling that can handle it.
Never had a 12 in 9-10s that I remember. I think I remember one 11 played down a few years ago.

We only recently combined 7-8 and 9-10s.

Zero, one, or two 8's with the 9-10s. (Again usually siblings.)
 

Several 6's play with the 7-8s. Hopefully we can go back to 4-5 PWjr and 6PW divisions this year. 

If there is a safety concern, we will move a player. Most so-called ones are not. A couple years ago a division director promised a bunch of kids could move divisions, (without telling anyone). Moved all but one back. The older kids didn't want to play with the younger ones, and the younger ones all wanted to play by the younger division rules, (coach pitch). 

I firmly believe that until they are teenagers, or are truly exceptional, you do a kid a disservice to move them up even if they can safely handle it since they lose the chance to develop skills. And few kids want to move down, since they want to play with the kids they have been with all along.





Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users