Dr. James Andrews: Let them play

[LongTimeListener]

I wonder what the proportion of "Bryce Harpers missed" to "potential Bryce Harpers ruined by burnout and overuse injuries" would be today?

What good is it to be the parent of an exceptional talent if you're not going to be extremely careful in nurturing said talent?

Too many parents today act like it's worth risking a blown-out arm so Johnny can be an All-Star at age 8. I want my kid to be healthy and reaching his physical peak when it really matters.

I think there's something to be said for that, especially for pitching.

OTOH, other countries show us -- whether it's in soccer, tennis, golf, gymnastics, whatever -- that people who specialize early and keep at it have a much greater chance to be great. There will be thousands left on the side of the road, of course. But for the sport itself and the professional circuit running it, that doesn't matter. All they care about is getting the best player there, they don't care who that player is.

The chances of any player reaching that level are too low to consider as a realistic parenting decision. But when you look back at it and see a Bryce Harper or a Tim Lincecum? Yeah, I think you can say the early intensity and focus helped greatly in getting them as far as they got.

We tell ourselves that none of it matters until they reach high school anyway. But I don't think that's true. For 99.99 percent of kids the extra training won't make a difference. But for the ones who do make it, I really think the extra training did have a lot to do with it.

 

[Starman]

I wonder what the proportion of "Bryce Harpers missed" to "potential Bryce Harpers ruined by burnout and overuse injuries" would be today?

What good is it to be the parent of an exceptional talent if you're not going to be extremely careful in nurturing said talent?

Too many parents today act like it's worth risking a blown-out arm so Johnny can be an All-Star at age 8. I want my kid to be healthy and reaching his physical peak when it really matters.

I think there's something to be said for that, especially for pitching.

OTOH, other countries show us -- whether it's in soccer, tennis, golf, gymnastics, whatever -- that people who specialize early and keep at it have a much greater chance to be great. There will be thousands left on the side of the road, of course. But for the sport itself and the professional circuit running it, that doesn't matter. All they care about is getting the best player there, they don't care who that player is.

The chances of any player reaching that level are too low to consider as a realistic parenting decision. But when you look back at it and see a Bryce Harper or a Tim Lincecum? Yeah, I think you can say the early intensity and focus helped greatly in getting them as far as they got.

We tell ourselves that none of it matters until they reach high school anyway. But I don't think that's true. For 99.99 percent of kids the extra training won't make a difference. But for the ones who do make it, I really think the extra training did have a lot to do with it.

This is the usual justification as to why U.S. kids should specialize by grade school age, "how else are we going to be able to compete in soccer, gymnastics, tennis, etc.

My answer is "who really gives a fork if the U.S. competes in soccer, gymnastics and tennis?"

 

[Hokie_pokie]

I wonder what the proportion of "Bryce Harpers missed" to "potential Bryce Harpers ruined by burnout and overuse injuries" would be today?

What good is it to be the parent of an exceptional talent if you're not going to be extremely careful in nurturing said talent?

Too many parents today act like it's worth risking a blown-out arm so Johnny can be an All-Star at age 8. I want my kid to be healthy and reaching his physical peak when it really matters.

I think there's something to be said for that, especially for pitching.

OTOH, other countries show us -- whether it's in soccer, tennis, golf, gymnastics, whatever -- that people who specialize early and keep at it have a much greater chance to be great. There will be thousands left on the side of the road, of course. But for the sport itself and the professional circuit running it, that doesn't matter. All they care about is getting the best player there, they don't care who that player is.

The chances of any player reaching that level are too low to consider as a realistic parenting decision. But when you look back at it and see a Bryce Harper or a Tim Lincecum? Yeah, I think you can say the early intensity and focus helped greatly in getting them as far as they got.

We tell ourselves that none of it matters until they reach high school anyway. But I don't think that's true. For 99.99 percent of kids the extra training won't make a difference. But for the ones who do make it, I really think the extra training did have a lot to do with it.

This is the usual justification as to why U.S. kids should specialize by grade school age, "how else are we going to be able to compete in soccer, gymnastics, tennis, etc.

My answer is "who really gives a fork if the U.S. competes in soccer, gymnastics and tennis?"

I know this is gonna be sacreligious on a board for sports journalists, but I'd expand your comment to: "Who really gives a fork if the U.S. competes in sports, period?"

The older my children get, the siller this whole obsession with youth sports seems. My son has at least three friends who are D-I talents but won't be going anywhere but JUCO because their grades aren't even good enough to get into a dogshirt 4-year-school.

Maybe, just maybe, if we encouraged our kids to "specialize" in math and science at an early age instead of throwing curveballs or shooting jump shots, we'd be able to keep up with the rest of the world in stuff that really matters.

 

[Bob Cook]

I wonder what the proportion of "Bryce Harpers missed" to "potential Bryce Harpers ruined by burnout and overuse injuries" would be today?

What good is it to be the parent of an exceptional talent if you're not going to be extremely careful in nurturing said talent?

Too many parents today act like it's worth risking a blown-out arm so Johnny can be an All-Star at age 8. I want my kid to be healthy and reaching his physical peak when it really matters.

Here's the thing -- the Bryce Harpers aren't missed. The Mary Cains aren't missed. Her dad knew something was up when he watched his daughter, who wasn't running 70 miles a week at this point, snap off a 5:30 mile in fifth-grade gym.

 

[Hokie_pokie]

That's kinda what I was getting at, Bob.

If the rationale for all this specialization is that it helps us identify our athletic prodigies, a certain percentage of which otherwise might go undiscovered, I'm gonna have to disagree.

While you do see late bloomers like Verlander, who was a hard thrower but nothing that special at Goochland HS, I don't think the true prodigies like Tiger or Bryce or Kobe spend much time flying under the radar.

IMHO, it's pretty obvious when you're dealing with a true prodigy and not just a pretty good kid who's had a shirtload of sport-specific training at a young age.

 

[LongTimeListener]

But consider just how few spots we're talking about when it comes to major league players. We've all seen can't-miss kids that the world has never heard of. The difference is usually in the training. On that, it's no different from educational philosophy -- I may not have been "smarter" than the kid down the street, but my education sure gave me a leg up. It's the same reason you have Juilliard or any number of high schools for super-high academic achievers. It's the reason the IMG sports academies exist, and as distasteful as we might find those factories, they are pretty effective at creating professional athletes.

Also I believe guys showing themselves as stars earlier is a result of this travel ball phenomenon too. Trout turning in the season he did at 20, Harper and Machado being so good at that age, five All-Star pitchers 24 or younger, Kershaw winning the Cy at age 23 ... the 17-year-old draft prospect of today has played enough games and been in enough competitive environments to compare to a college junior or senior of 25 years ago. And major league teams love that.

 

[BenPoquette]

What I really hate about the whole, "kids should not throw curve balls" argument is how entirely unnecessary a curve ball is to a kid 8-13 or so. When I was that age I threw harder than everyone, but I also mixed speeds and threw a cutter. I didn't really snap my wrist or put undue stress on my elbow...I just gripped the ball differently and it would move 3-4 inches.

Does an eight-year-old really need a curve that breaks off the table? You can throw four different pitches just by how you hold the ball.

 

[buckweaver]

Also I believe guys showing themselves as stars earlier is a result of this travel ball phenomenon too.

Yes, and no. The current crop of very young superstars is more likely to be a normal once-in-a-generation influx of talent than it is to be a permanent structural change in the ages when top prospects develop.

This happens about once every 20 years or so. See: http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/gXfVC

The seasons with the most under-25 players with All-Star caliber seasons (4+ WAR): 1980, 1999, 1993, 1992, 1984, 1979, 2008.

We're definitely seeing a lot of great young players, no doubt. But I wouldn't credit travel ball any more than any other factor. It's just one of baseball's curious cycles. Been that way for 100 years.

In 1992-93, it was Griffey, Thomas, Bagwell, R. Alomar, Baerga, J. Gonzalez, Lofton, Sheffield, Ventura, L. Walker ...

In 1979-80, it was Carter, Dawson, K. Hernandez, R. Henderson, Raines, Molitor, Murray, Dale Murphy, Randolph, O. Smith ...

In 1963-64, it was D. Allen, Cepeda, Flood, McCovey, J. Morgan, Rose, Freehan, Oliva, Santo, Torre ...

heck, go all the way back to 1911-12, it was Cobb, Speaker, E. Collins, J. Jackson, Doyle, McInnis, Milan ...

 

[Bob Cook]

But consider just how few spots we're talking about when it comes to major league players. We've all seen can't-miss kids that the world has never heard of. The difference is usually in the training. On that, it's no different from educational philosophy -- I may not have been "smarter" than the kid down the street, but my education sure gave me a leg up. It's the same reason you have Juilliard or any number of high schools for super-high academic achievers. It's the reason the IMG sports academies exist, and as distasteful as we might find those factories, they are pretty effective at creating professional athletes.

Also I believe guys showing themselves as stars earlier is a result of this travel ball phenomenon too. Trout turning in the season he did at 20, Harper and Machado being so good at that age, five All-Star pitchers 24 or younger, Kershaw winning the Cy at age 23 ... the 17-year-old draft prospect of today has played enough games and been in enough competitive environments to compare to a college junior or senior of 25 years ago. And major league teams love that.

Training alone doesn't cut it. Julliard is for kids who are already showing amazing ability at music -- not someplace where you stick your kid who can play "Chopsticks" on the piano. And as buckweaver mentioned, there have always been young stars. I don't think Jim Palmer was pitching in the 1966 World Series at age 20 because of travel ball. Now, I would agree that there is more high-level training and organized competition that allows these standouts to be challenged earlier. But you can't take just anyone and make him or her a great athlete by mere training alone, as many parents have found the first time their classically trained basketball child goes up against a 6-foot-10 freak with big hands who can jump out of the gym.

 

[LongTimeListener]

But look at my first sentence, Bob. We're talking about the top 25-50 players in the country -- the guys who make it vs. the guys who don't. And if you're #51, you don't. That's very much equivalent to Juilliard.

And Buck:

In 1992-93, it was Griffey, Thomas, Bagwell, R. Alomar, Baerga, J. Gonzalez, Lofton, Sheffield, Ventura, L. Walker ...

AGE AT FIRST AS APPEARANCE
Griffey 20
Thomas 25 (though he did finish third in MVP voting at 23)
Bagwell 26
R. Alomar 22
Baerga 23
Gonzalez 23
Lofton 27
Sheffield 23
Ventura 24
Walker 25

All of those firsts coming spaced out in various years, of course.

This year alone we had four 20-year-old All-Stars.

 

[poindexter]

I have nothing to back this up, but one area where perhaps the year-round specialization has helped is quarterbacks. 7 on 7 passing leagues all summer.

Just a couple of decades ago, even Hall of Fame qbs were getting their lunch handed to them (Troy Aikman, Elway, etc) or just not playing at all.

Now, rookie qbs are coming in and dominating.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I have nothing to back this up, but one area where perhaps the year-round specialization has helped is quarterbacks. 7 on 7 passing leagues all summer.

Just a couple of decades ago, even Hall of Fame qbs were getting their lunch handed to them (Troy Aikman, Elway, etc) or just not playing at all.

Now, rookie qbs are coming in and dominating.

Yes. I thought of that too.

The specialization ruins a lot of kids along the way and makes their experience terrible. And for that their parents should be shot.

But when it works, it really does work.