33 replies to this topic

[Adam T]

Our league puts together two 9/10 BB tournament all-star teams. This second team would have a hard row to hoe to make it out of their pool, let alone to be the district champions.

 

Given the nature of it being a "B" team, and with 13 players on the roster, is it reasonable to play a kid the minimum 1 at-bat? How about 1 at bat and 3 defensive outs? How about if it was a pre-tournament scrimmage? I want to get your seasoned perspective. Thanks.

[Mike_Hirschman]

How about not having two tournament teams?

 

That's what special games events are for if you are going to create them as an A/B rather than equally distribute the pool. I am all for giving kids an opportunity for compete. But don't stack the deck by making an A/B

[Robin Barradio]

I'm not a fan of the 1 at bat MPR. I think this is contrary to LL's mantra of participation. I always tried to give my kids as much playing time as possible, regular season or All Stars. Granted it is harder in All Stars then regular season, especially if using CBO in your league during the season.

 

If I had 13 players, I would pair up 4 of them at the beginning of the game and give them 3 innings each and whatever AB's they get. Next game, pair up different kids to spread the wealth. Once MPR is met, then you can switch anytime you want, handy if you are going to get 10 runned.

 

Give them as much playing time as you can. It will be funner for the kids, and get them some experience. It's tough for a kid to make an All Star team and barely play.

[Jeremy]

My league won't even do a 10/11 team because it's a "B" team of left overs from kids that didn't make 9/10 & 11/12....Pisses me off a bit.

[Lou Barbieri]

I'm in favor of as many kids playing All Stars as possible but I don't like A/B teams, especially if most of the better pitchers are on the "A" team.
If you don't have pitching on the "B" team you are in big trouble.
Without decent pitching you're setting up your "B" team to fail and it's likely they'll get beat badly.
Not normally a good experience for those players.

In my opinion, if you are going to have two teams, split the talent as even as possible between them.

[Mike_Hirschman]

I am honestly surprised, at least locally, that the rule change did not hurt the 10 year old tournament and inflate the numbers in 11s.

I would personally rather see a 9-10-11 roster rather than an 8-9-10 roster because your talent level should be better for that team... and there are so few 8s playing in a kid pitch division during the regular season.

Would you rather supplement a roster of 9s and 10s with 8s or with 11s?

I think that's an easy question to answer, but I guess I am in the minority. 

 

Of course, we also didn't mandate that the 8s had to be from a kid pitch division, so there is that... and yes, that question was asked and answered by The Hill. 

[Adam T]

How about during a 6 inning pre-tournament scrimmage? Is it ok to play a kid for 3 defensive outs and 1 at-bat? After all, this is above the minimum playing time.

As an administrator would you approach a coach who played a scrimmage in this way and advise him to get the kids more playing time? or is it his team and he needs to play the game the way he sees fit?

[amutz]

In our league the  expansion of age ranges for the Tournament did not have any impact.  Teams are no more than 2 years of age, and most of the teams are just one year of age.  I can imagine it working differently in very small leagues.      

 

With respect to minimum playing time it really depends on the manager and the roster.   Pre-tournament scrimmages are tune-up games for the tournament and you want to see your starting lineup in action.  I'd want to get every kid on the field, but not split 50/50. Then again if its really a 'B' team, I'd likely make sure everyone gets their 2 innings in the field if at all possible.

 

It's definitely situational.  If the game is close, most managers are going to stick to the game plan which gives them the best chance to win within the rules.  If the game is heading towards a blowout then I believe a manager should try to get every player time on the field and at bat.    

 

Finally its about setting expectations.  Managers should let the entire team know that playing time will not be equal and I think should let a player picked purely for offense or defense know they will be played that way prior to game-time.   I've seen some 'batting-only' kids show great poise and make real contributions...and that's a real achievement for a 12yo.   It's genuinely hard for a player used to being a stand-out on their team to ride the pine for most of the tournament.

[B_Hanlon]

If you know your B has little chance to compete I would play them all as much as possible.

[amutz]

Frankly no one is ever happy after going 1-2-BBQ.

If you play everyone as much as possible, some parents are mad because you didn't 'try to win'.
If you play to win and get blown out anyway, the parents of kids who got minimum or near-minimum play are mad because after all those practices their kids got so little playing time.

There isn't any magic answer... but it does help to communicate very clearly around expectations and do what you can to exceed them.

[Adam T]

Thanks for the input all.

 

After mulling it over I've come to the conclusion that the only good reason for a kid (9/10 YO) not practicing during a team's practice (scrimmage) is if it's a discipline issue with a disruptive player. Other than that there is no good reason to have a kid at a 2.5 hour practice to have one at bat... there just isn't. That kid is better served going to the batting cage, playing catch with their dad, or frankly just tossing the ball in the air. No kid needs to practice riding the pine to get ready to ride the pine during the game.

 

Of course, like you guys have pointed out, a game is an entirely different story with different ways to approach it.

 

To top the story off, the 13 kid roster was down to 12 last night (1 sick player). The kid I'm talking about had 1 at-bat (2nd batter in top of 6), and he played 3 defensive outs in the 5th. They never played the bottom of the 6th because the home team was leading and won the game. It's an odd situation for the kid because he received more playing time than required for a 13 man roster, but didn't meet MPR for a 12 man roster.

[Plesh]

Agreed. In scrimmages I sit my top players and give the other kids more playing time.

I know what my top players can do so I'd rather get those other kids more experience/ playing time, plus it gives me a better look at what they can/ can't do.

[Lou Barbieri]

When you get to the Tournament MPR not based on the number of players on the roster it's based on the number of eligible rostered players present at the start of the game.

So, if there are 13 players on the roster but only 12 at the game (1 sick), MPR would be based on 12 players, it would be one at-bat AND 6 consecutive defensive outs.

If this Scrimmage had been a Tournament Game there would have been an MPR Violation.

 

As for the scrimmage, I say play all the players as much as possible, it's a scrimmage, you should be evaluating your players, winning or losing should be secondary.

I would probably throw the best pitcher for the first inning and then let the number 2 and 3 and maybe even number 4 pitchers get some work, see what they can do.

[Adam T]

When you get to the Tournament MPR not based on the number of players on the roster it's based on the number of eligible rostered players present at the start of the game.

So, if there are 13 players on the roster but only 12 at the game (1 sick), MPR would be based on 12 players, it would be one at-bat AND 6 consecutive defensive outs.

If this Scrimmage had been a Tournament Game there would have been an MPR Violation.

 

It was a tournament game where they had 12 players.

 

As for the scrimmage, I say play all the players as much as possible, it's a scrimmage, you should be evaluating your players, winning or losing should be secondary.

I would probably throw the best pitcher for the first inning and then let the number 2 and 3 and maybe even number 4 pitchers get some work, see what they can do.

 

That is exactly what they did with the pitchers, a new pitcher each inning.

The excuse for getting a player 3 defensive outs and 1AB during a scrimmage was, "the coaches needed to see if they could manage substitutions with 13 players and still get each kid an inning in the field." They didn't want to get to a game and find out it was just too tough to manage the substitutions.

[Plesh]

It was a tournament game where they had 12 players.

 

It was an actual tournament game or a scrimmage for the tournament team?

[Adam T]

It was an actual tournament game or a scrimmage for the tournament team?

 

Two events. First event they had 13 players, this was a pre-tournament scrimmage. The player received 1AB and 3 defensive outs. Nothing wrong with this except a wrong philosophy (IMO).

 

Second event was an actual tournament game in the 9/10 LL tournament. 12 players dressed at the field. Player only received 1AB and 3 defensive outs. This was a MPR violation. The game was 5.5 innings long with the  home team winning. This player was on the visiting team. The manager thought it was all ok because it was a "shortened" game (they didn't play the bottom of the 6th inning). Of course this doesn't count as a shortened game, and it WAS an MPR violation.

 

Winning teams don't complain about MPR violations in a 12-5 win. Parents are hesitant to complain and drop the hammer on their teams manager to have him suspended for 2 games.

[Plesh]

Gotcha.

 

It's a tough situation certainly, but the manager has to know the rules, especially when it explicitly mentions in the rules that "A game is not considered shortened if the home team does not complete the offensive half of the sixth or seventh inning (or any extra inning) due to winning the game."

 

By rule it says that there either has to be a protest or that it has to be brought to the attention of the Tournament Committee for a suspension to occur.

The DA/local league can't suspend the manager on their own then, right?

[amutz]

I think MPR violations should be reported by the official scorekeeper or tournament director in the event the opposing team manager does not protest it during the game.  

MPR violations shouldn't be ignored IMO unless it's a loss in an elimination game. 

[Lou Barbieri]

Amutz is correct.

Several years ago the rule was changed such that there doesn't have to be an MPR Protest by the opposing manager (winning managers rarely Protest).

The MPR Violation can now be identified by the scorekeeper, umpire, TD, whoever.

If/when found, the TD calls Williamsport and the manager gets suspended.

 

Been there, done that!

 

 

Plesh: the local league can suspend the manager even if the MPR was not identified/called-in to Williamsport.

[Plesh]

That's what I thought.

 

And I agree amutz, an MPR violation should not be ignored. The rules are clearly stated, as is the punishment.

 

LL is all about getting kids to play. Giving them less than the minimum play is unacceptable, especially since 1 AB + 6 outs is really not that much. Appropriate punishment IMO.