Picking an all-area team, pt. 134,596

I agree in theory, but sometimes it's not that easy. I did the boys lacrosse all-stars for our paper this year, choosing from about 25 high schools. If we truly wanted to go with the best 15-20 kids in the area, they literally would come from about 3 of these teams, as we have a couple powerhouses in our area. Instead, I took about 4 kids from each of the powerhouses, and the rest scattered across the area.

I think people know that the kid from the tiny school wouldn't play at Powerhouse High. But if he puts up 100+ points, give the kid some recognition.

 

see, I don't buy that. best players are the best players. sorry if your shitty team didn't produce any, but this is supposed to be an award that means something. if you want to get more kids on there, be creative. in basketball, add to the starting five a sixth man - something I've started doing - to get one more kid on that first team. then add a second team. after that, if it's deserved, honorable mention.

 

That's where we are with boys hoops in my area (middling public schools, two stacked private schools with multiple high D-I players, and some other privates that are in between). Local radio hack last year was asking "Why isn't Mediocre Public School Forward X on the all-area team?" If we really did it on talent, 3/4 of the team would come from the two powerhouses.

 

so you make your 'all-star' team illegitimate?

 

I don't think that line of thinking is wrong at all.

Here in RI, we typically have anywhere between 2-4 divisions per sport. Would it be easier to just take the top kids from the top division? Sure. Would it be fair? See, I don't think so.

The point of an all-area team, IMO, is to pick out and highlight the kids that had the best years. It's not really fair to knock a kid who had a stellar year in D-II for going to the local public school which has an AD that refuses to or can't move said team to a higher level of competition.

In some sports, we have it easy because everyone competes against each other (ala tennis and track) but for something like football? Why should a middle of the road kid on Team A get rewarded for having an average season on a powerhouse team and get picked over a standout kid from Team B that made the playoffs and/or won a title?

Would Kid 1 demolish Kid 2 head-to-head? Perhaps. But, at what point do you start treating kids fairly?

Ideally, there would be a set of objective numbers to look at to evenly compare kids to each other. In some sports, that's available. In most, it's not.

I think you've just got to say to yourself "Who deserves to be recognized for their efforts the most this season?"

It's not a college recruitment tab. The best players don't necessarily need to make the cut. It's all about trying your best to treat everyone objectively. Or, at least that's what I always thought sports journalism was.

 

but isn't picking the best 11 players being objective?

look, I've found ways to get kids in when they needed to be there. six-man player that, on an 11-man team, may not be the super stud he is at his level is still amazing. so he gets on the first team as 'utility.' but when it comes down to it, I want my all-area team to mean something to the kids that make it. this isn't the all-district team -- you don't get to make it just because you're a senior. if a kid makes an all-area team, he is among the best there is at his position, period. again, that's why you've got second team and honorable mention.

 

If it is an all-star team pick the best 11 players or best five or six or whatever regardless of class.

 

D- 2 Baseball in RI is not on par with D 1. If you look at what happened this year the team that won the state in D 2 had a bunch of freshman. I doubt those freshman would be on par with the better kids of D 1.

 

and if you want - and it will sell more papers - make a D-I team, a D-II team and an all-star team combining the best of the two.

 

are there no crossover games between the big and small schools? We get a lot of that, and you can tell some times if the best small school guys can play with the bigger schools.

 

The situation in my area is a little different, at least where baseball is concerned. Here, the smaller schools, and the players at those schools, are often just as good, if not better than the big schools. We quite often have 2A schools playing and beating 5A schools (five classes here). In fact, the best prep baseball team in our area this year, by far, was a 3A school.

Even in football, there are usually plenty of small-school kids that are as good as the big-school kids. I mean, per capita, there are more NFL players from Mississippi than any other state, and a lot of those players come from schools with fewer than 500 students in grades 9-12.

So, chances are, if you've got the numbers in my area, you're going to get serious All-Area consideration from me regardless of the size of the school.

 

The problem in RI is the divisions are split up by ability, not school size. The best teams are in D-I, then the talent dwindles as you go down a level.
But if a kid hits .450 in D-II, my thinking is you have to take him over a .330 hitter in D-I. If a pitcher goes undefeated in D-II and leads his team to the postseason, you take him over a pitcher in D-I who was so-so.