I finally see why kids don't like playing baseball

[DrungoHazewood]

I think soccer is boring.

You're doing it wrong.

[DrungoHazewood]

It sounds like your issue is more a shortcoming in implementation and not the game of baseball itself. I played "little league" and for the most part loved it. Became a passion during HS years, maybe 8th grade. I played soccer through 8th grade and thought it was pretty mindless and boring. Maybe that was implementation, too.

I think a lot of it is coaches and league. But some of it really is that there are an awful lot of kids who find the basic act of batting or fielding to be very difficult, tending towards impossible, at 6, 7, 8. And that has a huge impact on the rest of the team when you're counting on, say, an occasional ground ball hit to everyone by the kids who are batting. When 90% of swings are misses. That's probably where you want to break up into smaller groups and not treat them like you might 12-year-olds.

Soccer probably has fewer basic skills that can be borderline impossible. They can be very difficult to be great at, but most kids can figure out how to kick a ball. But I'm sure a combination of coaching and individual (kids') preference plays into it as well. In my experience coaching soccer there are few kids who appear bored. But some who don't seem to want to be there. Kids who're mainly there because their parents want them to be there.

[Stotle]

I think a lot of it is coaches and league. But some of it really is that there are an awful lot of kids who find the basic act of batting or fielding to be very difficult, tending towards impossible, at 6, 7, 8. And that has a huge impact on the rest of the team when you're counting on, say, an occasional ground ball hit to everyone by the kids who are batting. When 90% of swings are misses. That's probably where you want to break up into smaller groups and not treat them like you might 12-year-olds.

Soccer probably has fewer basic skills that can be borderline impossible. They can be very difficult to be great at, but most kids can figure out how to kick a ball. But I'm sure a combination of coaching and individual (kids') preference plays into it as well. In my experience coaching soccer there are few kids who appear bored. But some who don't seem to want to be there. Kids who're mainly there because their parents want them to be there.

My enjoyment of soccer decreased as I aged. My enjoyment of baseball grew. Soccer was simplistic and monotonous to me, though I'm sure it's exhilarating for those playing at high levels.

I think baseball can be a lot of fun as long as you are keeping the kids engaged. If there are long stretches of lots of kids standing around then the parents running the practice/game need to rethink how they are going about it, in my opinion.

[Stotle]

I think soccer is boring.

I am impressed by the athletes. I think at the highest levels there is a poetry to the flow of the game (when players aren't laying on the ground and leaving their teams shorthanded in hopes of tricking the refs into calling a penalty). I don't think it is in the same universe as baseball as far as beauty and complexity.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think baseball can be a lot of fun as long as you are keeping the kids engaged. If there are long stretches of lots of kids standing around then the parents running the practice/game need to rethink how they are going about it, in my opinion.

I don't think there's much debate about that. If you have even moderately long stretches where the kids aren't doing anything you're going to lose the interest of most of the them.

[DrungoHazewood]

I am impressed by the athletes. I think at the highest levels there is a poetry to the flow of the game (when players aren't laying on the ground and leaving their teams shorthanded in hopes of tricking the refs into calling a penalty). I don't think it is in the same universe as baseball as far as beauty and complexity.

I think they're two amazing sports that are opposite ends of the spectrum. Baseball is discrete, it's fundamentally about the one-on-one matchup of the pitcher and batter. It's turn-based. It's routine until something bursts out. You have a team, but the players interact on a more limited basis. And it's infinitely analyze-able.

But soccer is in many ways exactly the opposite. It never stops, at its best it's a continuous flow of action and changing strategy and embedded one-on-one matchups. I enjoy it emotionally in a completely different way than baseball, almost more like music or an action movie, and from the emotion you can get into the flow of how the strategies work, or don't work.

I can see why people of a certain mindset would like one to the exclusion of the other, but to me they're both great, each lighting up different parts of my brain that the other couldn't reach.

[Can_of_corn]

I think they're two amazing sports that are opposite ends of the spectrum. Baseball is discrete, it's fundamentally about the one-on-one matchup of the pitcher and batter. It's turn-based. It's routine until something bursts out. You have a team, but the players interact on a more limited basis. And it's infinitely analyze-able.

But soccer is in many ways exactly the opposite. It never stops, at its best it's a continuous flow of action and changing strategy and embedded one-on-one matchups. I enjoy it emotionally in a completely different way than baseball, almost more like music or an action movie, and from the emotion you can get into the flow of how the strategies work, or don't work.

I can see why people of a certain mindset would like one to the exclusion of the other, but to me they're both great, each lighting up different parts of my brain that the other couldn't reach.

I do find soccer helps me reach that part of my brain that is the result of REM sleep.

[weams]

I am impressed by the athletes. I think at the highest levels there is a poetry to the flow of the game (when players aren't laying on the ground and leaving their teams shorthanded in hopes of tricking the refs into calling a penalty). I don't think it is in the same universe as baseball as far as beauty and complexity.

Oh, they have great athletes. So does the NBA.

[Stotle]

I think they're two amazing sports that are opposite ends of the spectrum. Baseball is discrete, it's fundamentally about the one-on-one matchup of the pitcher and batter. It's turn-based. It's routine until something bursts out. You have a team, but the players interact on a more limited basis. And it's infinitely analyze-able.

But soccer is in many ways exactly the opposite. It never stops, at its best it's a continuous flow of action and changing strategy and embedded one-on-one matchups. I enjoy it emotionally in a completely different way than baseball, almost more like music or an action movie, and from the emotion you can get into the flow of how the strategies work, or don't work.

I can see why people of a certain mindset would like one to the exclusion of the other, but to me they're both great, each lighting up different parts of my brain that the other couldn't reach.

I enjoy soccer when I watch it. Just don't have time to learn new leagues/watch.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uli2001]

I think soccer is boring.

People who say that are typically people who never played the game, but only watched on TV. You need to play it, especially as a kid, to get the fun in it. It's a shame that the U.S. has such a resistance to soccer. It would make a great addition to the major sports, AND the U.S. would certainly dominate the international stage.

[Why Not?]

I think the biggest reason kids don't like baseball is because they mostly suck at it.

OK, wait, that's not as bad as it sounds. I have three sons who have played T-Ball, machine-pitch, kid pitch as well as soccer and other sports. I've been a coach for most of their teams. I find that kids get vastly more discouraged playing baseball than the other sports. If you can't throw or hit, it's very obvious and, frankly, embarrassing. Everybody knows you screwed up.

There are pros and cons to the pitching machine. My kids play in a Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken league, so the machine is used from age 7-8 (with some older or younger kids sprinkled in). I have thrown 750,052 pitches with that spring machine. You can get it to throw strikes pretty consistently if you work it right, but it is an acquired skill. The biggest plus with the machine is that a 7-year-old can stand in there without the fear of getting beaned.

[Why Not?]

You'd think t-ball was the low point. But it may be the best baseball many kids ever play. Machine pitch is t-ball with tons of strikeouts. And it appears that kid pitch is machine pitch with the machine set on totally random. It really must be 12-13 year olds before actual baseball looks like its being played. That's about the age I was during my brief little league career and I remember it being vastly better then my kids' leagues.

At 9-10, some kids can throw strikes but many can't. Our league games at this level can either be surprisingly crisp or dreadful. Travel/tournament ball at 9-10 can be quite good.

[McLovin]

At 9-10, some kids can throw strikes but many can't. Our league games at this level can either be surprisingly crisp or dreadful. Travel/tournament ball at 9-10 can be quite good.

Having coached 9-10 for a while now, I'd say we usually have 3-5 kids that can throw strikes. One year I had 8 players that could throw strikes - and two were 8 year olds playing up.

Catching is the bigger problem; sacrificing one of your better kids to catch is tough. In White Marsh, dropped strike 3's are a dead ball at 9-10; but live at 11-12. So jumping that level, you really need a good catcher.

I think where you live, and the quality of the program, is obviously key. I've seen plenty of good ball out 9-10 year olds.

And this machine pitch stuff is stupid. We do coach-pitch at 7-8. With coach-pitch, they learn how to time the ball. And a good coach can serve it up just as good as a T.

[DrungoHazewood]

I enjoy soccer when I watch it. Just don't have time to learn new leagues/watch.

I get that. I think it's been good, in a way, that the Redskins have sucked for the better part of a generation, Virginia Tech basketball is not much better, and I've never had a lot of interest in hockey or the NBA. It opened up a sports vacuum in my life that soccer filled, and then expanded on its own merits.

People who say that are typically people who never played the game, but only watched on TV. You need to play it, especially as a kid, to get the fun in it. It's a shame that the U.S. has such a resistance to soccer. It would make a great addition to the major sports, AND the U.S. would certainly dominate the international stage.

I've learned from the Hangout that there is a very significant resistance to soccer among baseball fans. I think a lot of baseball fans see soccer as an existential threat to baseball's very existence. If you let soccer in it'll crowd out baseball, like there's only so much room for sports that don't score (or in football's case have a concussion and a commercial) every few minutes. It's too bad. I don't know if the US would be dominant in international soccer, but we could certainly be more competitive.

I think the biggest reason kids don't like baseball is because they mostly suck at it.

OK, wait, that's not as bad as it sounds. I have three sons who have played T-Ball, machine-pitch, kid pitch as well as soccer and other sports. I've been a coach for most of their teams. I find that kids get vastly more discouraged playing baseball than the other sports. If you can't throw or hit, it's very obvious and, frankly, embarrassing. Everybody knows you screwed up.

There are pros and cons to the pitching machine. My kids play in a Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken league, so the machine is used from age 7-8 (with some older or younger kids sprinkled in). I have thrown 750,052 pitches with that spring machine. You can get it to throw strikes pretty consistently if you work it right, but it is an acquired skill. The biggest plus with the machine is that a 7-year-old can stand in there without the fear of getting beaned.

I agree that kids sucking at baseball is a major component of them not liking it. Being a turn-based sport with a heavily individual component it's true that everyone sees your failure immediately. But I don't think that's my kid's problem. He's not Willie Mays, but he's one of the better players on his not-so-good team. His main problem is the lack of reps. He's not really playing baseball so much as standing around watching his teammates mostly fail at playing baseball.

His coaches, and the coaches from the rest of the league apparently don't have that "acquired skill" to make the machine regularly throw strikes. I think there's also an issue that it will throw strikes for some kids, but if you're 3' tall it'll throw pitches at shoulder/head height. There probably is a big advantage to being reasonably confident you're not going to be beaned. I can see my kid stepping in the bucket when I pitch to him, for fear of being beaned by Dad.

[DrungoHazewood]

At 9-10, some kids can throw strikes but many can't. Our league games at this level can either be surprisingly crisp or dreadful. Travel/tournament ball at 9-10 can be quite good.

It's almost always the case that hand-picked best players will be far above run-of-the mill players at this age. In soccer my 7-year-old is not Leo Messi, but in rec league he has some ball skills and confidence and that's enough to score three goals a game against players without much of either. From what I've seen the difference between a 6/7/8-year old rec player and a similar rec-plus or travel player is the ability to actually play the game. The rec players are still figuring out the basics and partly because of that they have little confidence to execute. Now... there are players with confidence but no skill in soccer. We call them football players, and they're kind of dangerous. They go for a 50-50 ball like a free safety.