Why aren’t there 11u divisions/competitions?

[uncdrew]

I seriously know several 80# girls that can knock the cover off the ball and girls that are 180# that can't hardly hit.

Then their skill level isn't the same.

 

[_MIA_]

I seriously know several 80# girls that can knock the cover off the ball and girls that are 180# that can't hardly hit. I know this is obviously not a general rule. But at any rate....the big girls in 12U are not 130#. My DD is 5'5" and 160# and she just turned 12. I definitely would not consider her one of the bigger girls.

The average US female over the age of 20 weighs 171 lbs and has a waist size of 38.6", so yeah in terms of the overweight American, that isn't big. That said, by comparison I am 6' tall and weigh 235 lbs and my waist is 38"....

 

[BrianTx01]

The average US female over the age of 20 weighs 171 lbs and has a waist size of 38.6, so yeah in terms of the overweight American, that isn't big. That said, by comparison I am 6' tall and weigh 235 lbs and my waist is 38"....

I am sure Men's Health and GQ will be asking you to be on the cover next month. I also feel like you are poking fun of a 12 year old girls weight which isn't cool.

The whole point I was making is 130# would not be considered to be big for 12U where I am from. Sure their are girls that are 60# playing 12U....but we have a 2009 team in our org which is 11O and the biggest girl is probably close to 5'7" and 180#. 11O is going to keep anyone from playing bigger kids.

 

[Top_Notch]

As mentioned, the biggest size differences seem to be at 12U. When DD played 10U another dad and I stopped by to watch the 12s and I was amazed at their size. He jokingly told me the coaches must feed them ham bones between innings...and they eat the bone! I couldn't envision DD playing 12U ... those girls just seemed so big and mature. She's playing 16U now...lol

Not much difference between 16U and 18U. But by then you'll be interested in the differences between D1/D2/D3. Trying to find the right fit for DD watching a D1 game and it looked like every girl rolling out the dugout was 6'4" and full of muscle. (DD is tall, but skinny)

 

[_MIA_]

I am sure Men's Health and GQ will be asking you to be on the cover next month. I also feel like you are poking fun of a 12 year old girls weight which isn't cool.

The whole point I was making is 130# would not be considered to be big for 12U where I am from. Sure their are girls that are 60# playing 12U....but we have a 2009 team in our org which is 11O and the biggest girl is probably close to 5'7" and 180#. 11O is going to keep anyone from playing bigger kids.

I stated facts...I wasn’t making fun of anybody. I am ugly as sin so no GQ won’t be calling me.

Oh and live in OK too so that average number I gave is probably higher here since OK isn’t exactly a state full of decathletes...

 

[Bernmoll]

well if you look up any growth chart, there is a steep change from 11-13 then levels off starting at 14. Again, I know that there are varying levels of talent regardless of size. I think what it boils down to is the strategy or notion of keeping girls the same year together as a team will more than likely be rough the first year of 12u (where you have all or mostly 11 year olds).

 

[Nimrod]

I think what it boils down to is the strategy or notion of keeping girls the same year together as a team will more than likely be rough the first year of 12u (where you have all or mostly 11 year olds).

Curious, how would you define a rough first year? What kind of W-L record? And are you in an area with a lot of teams, or few teams?

My daughter's teams finished with similar W-L records whether it was first- or second-year, usually around .500, until she got on a really good second-year 14U team. That was her 6th season. Her second-year teams were always stronger, but played tougher schedules.

But if you're in an area with fewer teams, then it might be hard finding appropriate competition, but then it would be even more unrealistic to have 11U and 12U if there aren't many teams.

 

[ang2bmd]

I think part of it depends on your area and what caliber of teams are available to you. I always wanted my dd to play on the best team she could "play" on. For us that meant a highly regarded national organization at the age appropriate level. If we had stayed local she likely would have needed to play a couple of years above her birth year and if it were rec all stars even more. Locally there were a lot of her friends at 12u that were playing 16s but her 12u team would have kicked the crap out of those teams so its all relative.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[peter.kottke]

There are 2009 teams here (metro Atlanta area/ N Ga) that play in 12O or 12A, 12B and 11O. A couple of them dominate when they play in 12B, struggle against second year 12U teams when they play in 12O or 12A, and find good parity when they play in the area USSSA 11O tournaments- but always play the same relatively small group of 11O teams. Some of the 11O teams are packed with large athletic girls. So it seems 11O is a good option for young single year 12U teams that will likely be competing at 12A the next year but it can’t be the only option if they want some variety. When my (mid B) 12U team was in its first year we had one older player so weren’t eligible for 11O... but they would have been a bad place for us to play except for an occasional stretch tournament where we would know we were likely going home early. There don’t seem to be enough mid level single year teams for 11B to make sense here. Instead TDs (not of national sanctions but the smaller local ones) offer tournaments for “first year” teams (meaning teams in their first year of 12U together) or they separate out a C/ Rookie division. That seems in line with RAD Catchers thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RedeemerKing]

well if you look up any growth chart, there is a steep change from 11-13 then levels off starting at 14. Again, I know that there are varying levels of talent regardless of size. I think what it boils down to is the strategy or notion of keeping girls the same year together as a team will more than likely be rough the first year of 12u (where you have all or mostly 11 year olds).

My 2 cents:

1: Yes—skill matters. But significant size disparity also matters at this age.
2: A small ‘09 team will most often lose to an identically skilled larger ‘08 team.
3: 2nd year 12u teams most often beat first year teams in each respective level (A/B). Not always, but often. Sort of a right of passage. Will the younger team get a chance of their own if they choose to beat younger teams starting in the fall? Likely yes.
Our team is dealing with this now. Smallish entirely first year team with many Nov/Dec birthdays playing 12u. When we play a 2nd year A level team we typically take some lumps. When we play a 2nd year 12B team or 1st year 11u team we typically do well. Are the 2nd year A teams a bit more skilled than us? Yes, often. Are they much larger than us on average? Very much yes.

The offset to losing most of those games vs 2nd year A teams is we learn a lot and it ultimately makes us better.

What gets me through it is knowing that many of these 2nd year 12u teams are at their peak—especially the ones playing B. For now, they get to occasionally celebrate when they eek out a win vs. girls 12-23 months younger. Their coaches are often ignorant to the fact that a team of 7th graders beating a team of mostly 5th graders 5-4 isn’t a significant achievement. As size equalizes, their advantage fully disappears and those who didn’t develop their skills fall off the grid at 14 and definitely by 16.