Which is more competitve and has more talent playing? Lets here what you think..

I played both growing up, and I'm sure many still do.

 

I'd be willing to bet the majority of little league teams who qualify for state, regional, and LLWS would be very competitive with AAU teams. Being an AAU team does not mean you are good. I've seen my fair share of terrible travel ball teams.

I've always felt AABC has more talent, but I haven't been exposed to Little League as much. As far as competitiveness, I have no idea. The tournaments were always what we cared about when we were playing. The league didn't matter that much to us. It was all about winning the travel tournaments.

The biggest thing that bothers me are the deminsions that these kids play..It's like mlb playing at Softball City.. A popup is a homerun. I believe a dinger needs to be something special. It isn't special when 12yr olds hit 4 and 5 a game..jmo

What we see on TV are All Star teams, many of these kids can compete in travel ball. However the teams in little leagues are in general less talented that the those in travel ball. There are exceptions, but overall the travel ball talent is better.

AABC (at least in Northern Kentucky) is where the talent is. I was playing in that league when I was the same age as these kids and we were playing the same dimensions that is used in college and so forth and that is where you really start to see who separates from the rest. Most of the kids who are college bound for baseball come from the AABC league at least in our area. I think some of these little league teams would be competitive in AABC but not all. I really think some would get a reality check in the talent level there. I'm not trying to knock on Little League I'm just stating what I know from my experiences.

What we see on TV are All Star teams, many of these kids can compete in travel ball. However the teams in little leagues are in general less talented that the those in travel ball. There are exceptions, but overall the travel ball talent is better.

 

Well put!

The problem with little league is the fact they they let 13 year old kids play. A few years ago they allowed older kids to play, when in reality they should have moved the cut off date in the other direction.

The problem with little league is the fact they they let 13 year old kids play. A few years ago they allowed older kids to play, when in reality they should have moved the cut off date in the other direction.

This brings up a related point that I have with LL. A few years ago, I brought a team to Madison, IN to play in a LL tournament. While I can see where some argue against LL rules, distances, etc., vs. "select" ball, our players had a blast. Primarily due to the short fences. Kids like to hit HR's, and there are very few fields designed for kids under high school age. So, I can certainly see the appeal.

 

To the point that is quoted, as a coach/parent, my big issue was the 46' feet distance. You had some big kids hitting and pitching just 46' feet apart from each other. By the time the pitcher releases the ball, he is approx. 40' away and vulnerable to a liner back up the box. The fact that 13 year old kids are permitted to play only amplified a potentially dangerous situation.

 

If I could have done it over again, I would have brought helmets for our pitchers like some teams are using. In fact, I'm very surprised that Little League hasn't adopted this as mandatory equipment for pitchers.

40 Thousand at a little league game one night, 30 thousand the next. Yes, LL has ran it's course and is now a joke!! No interest in it at all. :lol::lol: LL was the first and imo is still the best. The only "joke" imo is the adults that put any kids league down.

 

Seriously, I have coached and umpired in both and I honestly believe that LL is the best for kids in that it focuses on teaching 11/12 yr. old the kids basic fundamentals of baseball. There is plenty of time after 12 yrs old for a kid to learn more advanced baseball. Get the basics down and the rest is easier to teach and learn. jmo.

40 Thousand at a little league game one night, 30 thousand the next. Yes, LL has ran it's course and is now a joke!! No interest in it at all. :lol::lol: LL was the first and imo is still the best. The only "joke" imo is the adults that put any kids league down.

Seriously, I have coached and umpired in both and I honestly believe that LL is the best for kids in that it focuses on teaching 11/12 yr. old the kids basic fundamentals of baseball. There is plenty of time after 12 yrs old for a kid to learn more advanced baseball. Get the basics down and the rest is easier to teach and learn. jmo.

Nice post! I agree! The bold is ALL about "daddy ball". :thumb:

Nice post! I agree! The bold is ALL about "daddy ball". :thumb:

 

You guys are absolutely clueless..I am glad you enjoy pre-school baseball..Check out the New Era Youth Majors next week and you tell me what is better.. It will be on the mlb network.. It's not even close..They play big boy baseball..You know leadoff, dropped third strikes, pitching from the stretch, pitching from 50ft, 70ft bases, 300ft fences etc..To even try and compare the two is hilarious..

The problem with little league is the fact they they let 13 year old kids play. A few years ago they allowed older kids to play, when in reality they should have moved the cut off date in the other direction.

 

Little League is no different than than the multitude of other youth leagues that set a cut-off age date in April or May of each year. As long as a player does not pass his division's age by that date (i.e., a 12U player does not turn 13 prior to this date), he is eligible to play. Not disagreeing that perhaps it might be better to back up this date to later in the year, but Little League is consistent with the other leagues. I would venture a guess that over half the kids playing at a certain age level (in all leagues) have turned the next age prior to their team's season ending.

40 Thousand at a little league game one night, 30 thousand the next. Yes, LL has ran it's course and is now a joke!! No interest in it at all. :lol::lol: LL was the first and imo is still the best. The only "joke" imo is the adults that put any kids league down.

 

Seriously, I have coached and umpired in both and I honestly believe that LL is the best for kids in that it focuses on teaching 11/12 yr. old the kids basic fundamentals of baseball. There is plenty of time after 12 yrs old for a kid to learn more advanced baseball. Get the basics down and the rest is easier to teach and learn. jmo.

 

I would disagree with this greatly. I love watching LL on TV and some of those kids are simply outstanding, but they are absolutely of the age where they should be taking leadoffs, learn how to read a pitcher's movement and steal a base, learn how to execute a hit and run, pitchers should know how to pitch from a stretch and hold runners on base, catchers learn techniques to pick off/throw out base stealers, hold third strikes and how to react if they do not, etc.. Those are all also fundamentals of baseball and players who do not know those things are behind other kids their age.

 

I remember quite a few years ago when my 12U team went to Cooperstown. It was obvious when we came up against a Little League team - their players couldn't do these things and it showed. The distances for LL are also simply too small. Yes, it is cool to watch these kids on TV hit HR's, no question, but many of these HR's are simply decently-hit fly outs and nothing special. It's pretty much impossible to hit a triple on those fields because the OFer's are already at the fences. Kids these days are bigger and stronger and specialize in sports - they play baseball year round - so 225 fences, 60' basepaths, and 46' pitching distance simply aren't appropriate any longer. Move them back - it won't hurt the kids in the slightest.

Little League is no different than than the multitude of other youth leagues that set a cut-off age date in April or May of each year. As long as a player does not pass his division's age by that date (i.e., a 12U player does not turn 13 prior to this date), he is eligible to play. Not disagreeing that perhaps it might be better to back up this date to later in the year, but Little League is consistent with the other leagues. I would venture a guess that over half the kids playing at a certain age level (in all leagues) have turned the next age prior to their team's season ending.

 

The cutoff date used to be July 31. Kids were already getting to big to play on the little field (hence pushing the fences back), so why allow older kids to play?