Nine Year Old Boy Told He's Too Good to Pitch

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

.

You don;t get BETTER playing against joe schmuck pitcher, you get better facing a challenge.

What if the parents (owners, really), of this particular league don't really care about the "development" of their players and just want to get them out of the house every once in a while? Why can't they run a casual, fun, going-out-for-ice-cream kind of league if that's what they want? Why can't little Cy Young just find a more competitive league?

There's many different theories of youth sports. For some, it's about developing college prospects. For some, its about hanging out with friends. What we have here is an issue of those different contrasting visions coming together.

I think the actual Little League organization has a good setup - a "minors" and "majors" that roughly overlap the same age group. That solves a lot of these kinds of problems.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

What if his hitting and fielding are on par (or even below) his fellow nine year olds? Should he never be able to develop those skills because he's clearly overmatched by the pitching of 11 year olds?

Very unlikely. A kid that age coordinated enough to dominate that well in pitching is going to be above his peers in probably all athletic pursuits. We're talking 2nd-graders here right?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Very unlikely. A kid that age coordinated enough to dominate that well in pitching is going to be above his peers in probably all athletic pursuits.

I would disagree. They had no problem with him playing second base. To me that means he does not hit too well, run too fast, or field too well for that age group. They just don't want him to pitch too fast.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Maybe he will. Who knows. It is all speculation for sure. I find it funny that we need to have special rules because a nine year old dominates other nine year olds. If we are going to have special rules against him, we should be probably be prepared to have special rules for him in case he does not pitch "too fast" for the kids at the higher level and gets hammered.

I disagree.

Humility is a good trait to learn at an early age.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

I also can't believe there's a "league attorney". What the hell does he do?

I would imagine almost all youth sports leagues have an attorny on retainer. What if little johnny gets beaned and the parents decide to sue the league, some legal representation would be required.

[BrianD]

Don't normal little leagues have pitch count rules or innings pitched rules? It seems to me that this kid would get a chance to dominate every third game or something like that. Doesn't that allow acceptable development of others for a majority of the games he is involved in?

[hhiipp]

Pretty sure the league I played little league in a pitcher was limited to 7 innings over a 7 day period and no more than 5 innings in a game. Normally we played 2 games within that 7 day period and rarely a 3rd. Usually it'd be pitch 5 innings one game and your other pitcher would finish up (unless it got called due to 10 run rule.) And then you'd use your other 2 innings during the other pitchers start.

[ekcut]

Ban him for being too good, and give all teams medals and trophies...even if they don't win single game!
Let's celebrate mediocrity!
"Wooohooo....We're number 15, we're number 15! And we have the trophy to prove it!" Tell me how these leagues that give every team a reward is beneficial to the growth of a player? Since when is instilling a false sense of confidence healthy?
I know I am off on a tangent, but it's the same mentality that makes parents want to ban a kid for being too good, as those who feel every kid should win a trophy.
By sheltering your kid from failure, you prevent them from ever enjoying (and wanting to strive for) success!
If my son or daughter was in that league, I'd encourage them to face that pitcher, and see if they were the one to hit off of him. There is more pride in a hard fought failure, then a gimmie win....even at that age.

[mtolson]

Interesting problem.

I went through something similiar when daugther played softball around 11 or 12 years old. One team had this little girl the would pitch so hard most batters would jump back as the ball came in fear and swing wildly. That team hadn't lost a game in 3 years with her pitching. The girl was all over the place with the ball but it came at the batter so hard and most felt they had no chance but to jump. My daughter was also a pitcher and the first thing she thought was the girl couldn't control the pitch and she new how to solve the problem. When she got her first at bat she hugged the plate as tight as she could. 4 pitches and she was at first base. The next inning she told her teamates to do the same thing and not to be scared. Some how she realized that the girl was throwing hard but often just barely hitting the strike zone and that a great deal of balls but no one would hang in box long enough to figure it out. The girl went on to walk the next 5 or 6 batters that hugged the plate. The next time at bat, my daughter smacked it to the fence as the girl had to greatly reduce her speed to gain control. The pitcher was yanked the next inning as she was either walking the batter or getting rocked. It was really cool to watch the team that went from pickling daisy's in the outfield gettting took down a notch.

Now with this kid, I am not so sure I would want to try that tactic because his pitches would obviously hurt a lot more. It's a hard one to call: him getting no hitters every game doesn't help his teammates develop defenseipate but at the same time telling he can't play because he is to good is just crazy. As a coach, I think I would limit his play at that age group. If he was a little older I would have no problem with him playing a full game though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

Pretty sure the league I played little league in a pitcher was limited to 7 innings over a 7 day period and no more than 5 innings in a game. Normally we played 2 games within that 7 day period and rarely a 3rd. Usually it'd be pitch 5 innings one game and your other pitcher would finish up (unless it got called due to 10 run rule.) And then you'd use your other 2 innings during the other pitchers start.

Sounds about like what I remember too FWIW, going back some 30 years.
Today different leagues, afaik, handle it differently. Some are pitch count, some are innings, heck there's probably some that are games based.

On the bigger picture, I remember a couple of guys who sound like this kid. Basically the "monsters" mentioned in a recent espn.com column/article. 10-15 k's per game, just wild enough to be devastatingly effective, hit a couple of batters early in the year (one did it on purpose, the other was just a tad wild) and nobody would dig in. Got plunked myself a couple of times and watched the first kid put up about a season & a half without allowing an earned run.

But at no point did it ever cross the mind of any of the players to complain about either pitcher, we dreaded facing them but that was as far as it went.
If you got hit you rubbed some dirt on it. I can remember a couple of grandmothers grousing about the skill level (one was awfully big for his age) but there was never anything seriously considered about moving them.
And it strikes me as a pretty pathetic indictment of our society that anyone considers that a reasonable solution. Don't want 15 k's a game against you? Then work on your hitting & catch up to his ass.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by molson

Very unlikely. A kid that age coordinated enough to dominate that well in pitching is going to be above his peers in probably all athletic pursuits. We're talking 2nd-graders here right?

I'd like to disagree here, as well. I used to play with a kid who was lights out when he pitched as a 10-12 year old. He was a big kid for his age and threw the ball much harder than anybody else but he couldn't do anything else. He played RF when he wasn't pitching and usually hit at the bottom of the order and rarely hit the ball. For whatever reason, things clicked for him on the mound and that's it.

Another example is a kid who played with my younger brother who again threw very hard for a kid his age...not very accurate but I think that was part of his effectiveness...but he was a space cadet. This was the kind of kid that would swing so hard that his helmet would fly off each and every swing...and I'm not exaggerating one bit here...heck, I remember seeing him swing at a pitch while being intentionally walked...miss it by a mile...and then knock his helmet 10 feet past 3B on his follow through!!! Oddly enough, this kid was drafted, albeit in the later rounds, and obviously solely based on his ability to light up the radar gun, but I don't even think he pitched an inning in any kind of pro-ball.

Times have definitely changed. I remember getting peppered with groundballs by our coaches for hours. I'm not talking about slow rollers...I'm talking about 40 year old men hitting the ball as hard they could. Those were days. Just to compare, the last time I coached Little League (a couple of years ago) we had to be careful not to hit the ball too hard at little Johnny because he didn't like to wear a cup and his parents wouldn't force him to. I even got pulled aside from a parent after batting practice telling me that their son likes the ball in a certain place for him to be able to hit it. If you want the ball on a tee...PLAY GOLF!!!!

[BrianD]

Does stuff like this happen in other countries, or is it just in the US?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Does stuff like this happen in other countries, or is it just in the US?

Probably happens to a lesser extent elsewhere although I have never heard of it in England.

Most English coaches I've known think that getting hammered builds character, to be honest I agree with them - I've been on teams which have given out thrashings (rarely) and also taken them (more frequently).

Whenever we got beaten badly it always encouraged us to try harder and do better, yes its painful to the ego ... but if you hide such realities from kids as they grow up then they're going to have a heck of a shock once they reach the real world.

Remember this is ONLY about ego's and feelings nothing else - surely its better for kids to learn about success/failure in a safe situation like this where it ultimately doesn't matter to them than to find out in a more serious situation later on in life?

PS - My 3-a-side team here in Florida have been asked to 'go easy' on teams occassionally which is the first time I've ever had that happen and this is an adult league we're in (and no we're not 'that' good - we got well and truly hammered in a competition about a month ago, the best result that day I think was about a 6-3 loss with a couple of matches where we got thrash 11-2 and suchlike ...in our defense we were playing against teams populated with people half our age (late teens to early twenties) and the little bleeders just didn't stop running around ... has encouraged me to work harder in the gym though ).
The most annoying thing for me when we've been asked to 'go easy' is that the teams in question haven't accepted the idea of calling it a 'result' and rebalancing teams by mixing the sides up - to me that seems much more fun and fair than simply crippling a team by only allowing one touch passing or similar (which to be honest is artificial and dull).

[Scarecrow]

"Jericho's coach and parents say the boy is being unfairly targeted because he turned down an invitation to join the defending league champion, which is sponsored by an employer of one of the league's administrators."

This explains EVERYTHING. Daddyball at its finest.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

PS - My 3-a-side team here in Florida have been asked to 'go easy' on teams occassionally which is the first time I've ever had that happen and this is an adult league we're in

I had this happen to me in little league football (many, many years ago). This was a league for middle-school kids, ages 12-14. Basically me and one other guy were moved to play safeties and were told that "we are the last guys on the team to make a tackle". The coaches knew that we would still easily win and it gave the younger guys a chance to get some practice.

I suppose at some point, completely dominating doesn't help the winners or the losers develop. You shouldn't have to sit down because you are too good, but mixing it up a bit might be better for overall development.

[Marc Vaughan]

[quote=BrianD;1816210I suppose at some point, completely dominating doesn't help the winners or the losers develop. You shouldn't have to sit down because you are too good, but mixing it up a bit might be better for overall development.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this - however the normal 'jumpers for goalposts' way of doing things in England if you're playing a friendly match and its too unbalanced is either to:

* Repick sides so they're balanced
* Give a player from the better side to the worst one until things even out

Both are simply 'playground' solutions but work quite nicely and are imho better than making players play worse than they are or sit out matches.

[molson]

The more I think about it, maybe they just want this mother out of the league.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

"Jericho's coach and parents say the boy is being unfairly targeted because he turned down an invitation to join the defending league champion, which is sponsored by an employer of one of the league's administrators."

This explains EVERYTHING. Daddyball at its finest.

Is it common for little leaguers to chose which team to play for? I've never heard of that.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by molson

Is it common for little leaguers to chose which team to play for? I've never heard of that.

In the league I'm a board member of (it's girls fastpitch, but the boy's side is the same), the teams are formed by coaches. We have a person that will match players with teams needing a player or two, but that probably accounts for around 5 players out of 900 players in the league each season.

If fact, to scare you even more, my 7 year old daughter is being recruited by 4 teams right now because of her pitching ability. One team, which we don't like, has gone so far as to offer her a fully funded spot on the team (they'll pay for her uniform, registration fees, tourny fees, etc.) plus pay for her pitching lessons (which run $50 per 1 hour session).

On the other hand, my 9 year old daughter is a decent role player - good bat and good glove, but a weak arm and a slow runner - and is having a hard time finding a team, having tried out for 3 so far this 'off-season'. She still has a spot on her current team, but is moving up and she's got another year of eligability in 10u.

These are extreme cases of competative ball, but this is commonplace around the country.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And it strikes me as a pretty pathetic indictment of our society that anyone considers that a reasonable solution. Don't want 15 k's a game against you? Then work on your hitting & catch up to his ass.

What strikes me as the pathetic indictment of society in all this is that the explusion seems to be done as a spiteful measure by the league admin whose team got snubbed by this kid.

I'm almost 100% certain, especially since there is a quote from the league lawyer, that he consulted with the lawyer, found out he is protected from any personal liability by the insurance policy of the league while he is acting in the role of a league admin. So he can be a complete dick, and as long as he stays in the civil realm and doesn't do anything criminal, he is covered by the insurance policy. If they kid's parents end up suing, the case won't be resolved until after these kids have already moved up in age, and the guy gets away with the dick move scot free.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

What strikes me as the pathetic indictment of society in all this is that the explusion seems to be done as a spiteful measure by the league admin whose team got snubbed by this kid.

I guess I've given that a relatively free pass because, well, that's pretty much the sort of thing I've come to expect from youth sports leagues. From playing to coaching to watching to being a parent, that's about 35 years I've been familiar in some form or fashion with them & I really can't think of a single experience where some form of corruption would have come as the slightest surprise.

Those who remember my t-ball dynasty thread will probably understand why the real impetus behind this doesn't surprise me one bit. And I guess that's why I've focused more on the fact that there are apparently a number of parents in the league willing to go along with this. From the top, it's just more of the same type of crap I've witnessed my whole life, just a different way of being crappy.

[stevew]

I seem to remember quite a bit of bullshit in Little League 20 years ago when I played. The team I was on had won the league like 3-4 years in a row. The whole "brothers on the same team rule" was a major tactic in the league and once you got the oldest member of the family you could really build a dynasty.

There was a pitcher a year older than me that averaged at least 12-15K's per game including at least one near perfect strikeout game. Daddyball always kicked in though, as our coach ended up resigning midway through our 12 year old season, due to the fact that the other teams hated how good the squad was/had been. In the daddyball defense, our coach was a pretty big jackass. Anyways we pounded people and won all 20 games with maybe 2 close games all year.

I'll ramble now cause it makes me think about how different everything was when we were all 12, compared to even by the time we graduated HS. Couple of kids ended up going to catholic school, and we didn't really talk much after that.

The guy who stepped up to replace our original coach died a few years ago, way too early(58ish). He was one of my best friends dads. Great guy, I think about him all the time and it makes me sad that I didn't go see him that much after HS. Before he died, couple of us were thinking about having a big get together with everyone that was on the team and having a picnic or somesuch. Without him around, I doubt it will happen.

I was just thinking about how when you're like 10-12 years old you have such good friends and think you'll be friends forever and then one day you just aren't anymore.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RendeR

This is wrong, period. Building confidence requires trial and testing, if the best kid in the league gets moved on because the rest of the league sucks too much to handle him how does that build their confidence? it undermines it. having faced exactly this situation when i played little league I can state with confidence that if they had taken the best pitcher(s) out of our league it would have made us all feel like total losers. (I added the plural because we had two guys go on to play minor league ball when I played LL and we took it as a matter of pride to take every swing we could get at those two guys)

I type a long response but forget it. Your wrong because you know nothing of coaching. Losing builds character while winning builds confidence, I learned that in pee-wee league.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Noop

I type a long response but forget it. Your wrong because you know nothing of coaching. Losing builds character while winning builds confidence, I learned that in pee-wee league.

This would be more the case this kid was the only pitcher going. Each of these teams is still winning and losing games facing all the other pitchers in the league. I mean seriously, it's one season and then there's a good chance these kids may not face a pitcher that dominating again in their lives (and they'll see him what, 4-5 times each this season?). If I were coaching one of the other teams I'd be challenging my players to go in there and take their cuts and see if they can't get a few hits. About the only way I'd complain is if the pitcher was hitting kids more often than not and creating a safety issue, but so long as he's throwing strikes, let them play.

[Autumn]

Ignoring how this particular situation was handled, I think at that age it's not out of line for teams to want this team to give them a break. The game's not fun if there's no contest, and while maybe there could be one (as some of the anecdotes in this thread suggest in ways of facing a superior pitcher), why not either move the kid up to a league he can be challenged in, or just reduce his pitching time. Have him pitch a couple innings, and then spend his time working on other positions on the team.

He's not a high schooler, he might as well work on his overall game. And everybody else wants to have fun too, so there's no reason he needs to be out there striking every batter out.

I don't think this is necessarily a case of "everyone gets a medal." I think it's just the wrong age to be hard-nosed about sports. At that age we still went by the "everyone gets a turn" approach. Why not have him work at playing shortstop, and let the batter have a chance at learning to hit.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Noop

I type a long response but forget it. Your wrong because you know nothing of coaching. Losing builds character while winning builds confidence, I learned that in pee-wee league.

Stated like a finely memorized tag line (which it is).

Learning builds confidence, gaining and building your abilities builds confidence. Winning and losing are rather irrelevent. The ability to step up to the plate against what is accepted as a superior opponent and learn to beat that opponent is what teaches kids to excel.

Move this kid out o the league and you've ust taken that away from them.

This isn't about winning and losing, this is about teaching the kids what it means to grow and build your skills playing a sport.

And to answer molson's question regarding "rec league" status, if its a recreational league then its got to be stated as such. I can't see from anything in this story wether this is a rec league or a competitive league. Either way if the parents have signed the kids up they ought to shut up and sit back and support their kids, not bitch about someone else's kid using the skills nature gave him.

The kid is 9 years old, let him play against his peers, as he grows and moves into other groups he will face all the competition he ever needs. Forcing him to move up only isolates him and makes him feel out of place.

I understand parents want their kids to be happy and enjoy the sports they play, thats perfectly normal and right, however, trying to control the level of the playing field to ENSURE your kids are happy and feeling special is wrong. You teach them to work harder to get better if they want to excel, you don't make the game simpler for them, that teaches them nothing but to expect others to do for them and accomodate their inadequacies.

Kids need, love, attention, affection and more than anything else, they need to be taught. They WANT to learn and grow and do. How does rigging the game in any way help them learn anything other than "if I can't succeed, cheat"

Seriously.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Don't want 15 k's a game against you? Then work on your hitting & catch up to his ass.

That's a pretty harsh reality for a 9 year-old who probably would rather play video games. If we only want little leaguers with a warrior mentality, that push themselves to the brink, that practice when other kids are sleeping, that eat and breath baseball, than that's a great message. If it's just a kid who wants to play a game with friends (99% of little leaguers), than you come across like a scary gym teacher who takes this stuff too seriously. They won't be interested in that league.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

And to answer molson's question regarding "rec league" status, if its a recreational league then its got to be stated as such. I can't see from anything in this story wether this is a rec league or a competitive league.

I think for second-graders, the default is "rec league status", with maybe a handful of insane, academy-type leagues across the country where the competition is more cutthroat.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Stated like a finely memorized tag line (which it is).

Learning builds confidence, gaining and building your abilities builds confidence. Winning and losing are rather irrelevent. The ability to step up to the plate against what is accepted as a superior opponent and learn to beat that opponent is what teaches kids to excel.

You are wrong and quite frankly I think out of touch. What you say may true for an older player who has experienced success but not to a child.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

I think for second-graders, the default is "rec league status", which maybe a handful of insane, academy-type leagues across the country where the competition is more cutthroat.

I think you're assuming far too much here. When I was 8-9 we had the "pee wee" league and it was just as conmpetitive as the regular little league and the senior leagues for the older kids.

Its all relative to the area you're in though. I grew up in a very rural area where the general PC bullshit that you find in todays suburbian societies didn't exist. We were taught to work harder, move faster and pay closer attention to detail if we were not succeeding. Practivce practice practice.

The best kids played and if your team was ahead then some of the subs would get playing time. We played to win the game, as a well known nfl coach likes to say. The parents sometimes griped but we kids would normally take care of that. My friend Mike was a good catcher, but Ward was a far better one and when ward wasn't pitching he caught. Mike got to play 1 game out of 4. His Mother was furious and raised a stink at every game where Mike wasn't playing. Mike finally turned around stood on top of the dugout and told his mother to shut up and let the team play.

He was sick of his mom making us all miserable. I wish mpore kids had the self confidence to do that. You don't learn that by having mom n dad candy coat things for you and make everything easier.

YMMV, I guess its just a question of what you personally believe will make your kids smarter, stronger and more confident. every parent is different.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Noop

You are wrong and quite frankly I think out of touch. What you say may true for an older player who has experienced success but not to a child.

You may disagree with my point of view, that does not make it wrong. In MY experience it is indeed true for almost every player I was around and involved with. Experiencing success is worthless without experiencing failure. You gain nothing from either one without the other.

I don't think either of us is "out of touch" though I percieve that between the two of us you are more to the "touchy feely" side of coaching than I am. If that works for you/you players, then thats great and I applaud you.

I think you need to concede that there are far more opinions of what is right and wrong in the world than just your own.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You don;t get BETTER playing against joe schmuck pitcher, you get better facing a challenge.

That's true, but just like someone can be so bad that there's no challenge, a pitcher could be so good that there's no real challenge. I mean, I don't think 9 year olds would learn alot by whiffing at a bunch of Johan Santana pitche, for example.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You may disagree with my point of view, that does not make it wrong. In MY experience it is indeed true for almost every player I was around and involved with. Experiencing success is worthless without experiencing failure. You gain nothing from either one without the other.

I don't think either of us is "out of touch" though I percieve that between the two of us you are more to the "touchy feely" side of coaching than I am. If that works for you/you players, then thats great and I applaud you.

I think you need to concede that there are far more opinions of what is right and wrong in the world than just your own.

The thing is your the one who came with the higher then thou opinion and I was merely pointing out that your perception is not in touch with today's reality.

[Autumn]

Certainly a challenge is necessary to grow, but as pointed out above, there's a spectrum. Why do we have age-based teams? Why aren't these kids playing against high school or college aged kids, and sitting on the bench? Because that doesn't make sense, of course. Just becuase this kid is the same age doesn't mean it necessarily makes any more sense then putting them up against high school pitchers.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

"Jericho's coach and parents say the boy is being unfairly targeted because he turned down an invitation to join the defending league champion, which is sponsored by an employer of one of the league's administrators."

This explains EVERYTHING. Daddyball at its finest.

Not just 'one of,' but rather the league president, if I'm not mistaken. The league president wants the player on the team he's sponsoring, and since he can't have the kid, doesn't want him to play, period.

It has nothing to do with "the confidence level of the other kids."

[JonInMiddleGA]

If it's just a kid who wants to play a game with friends (99% of little leaguers)

I strongly dispute that proportion. Bears no resemblance to most I've been around, and there's a strong weight toward non-travel, very average leagues in my experience so it's not like I'm basing on high end stuff. It's definitely not what it was back in my day but I'd still say close to half are interested enough to put forth a little effort not to be consistently embarrassed.
Heck, I got around that much interest out of a half-assed t-ball league with a low talent group.

They won't be interested in that league.

Then don't play in that league. I've really seen nothing to suggest that this is a "just-for-fun" league, especially not given the bright red flag the article throws up in reference to the previous league champs wanting this kid. This seems much more like a case of "we don't want anybody to beat us like a drum", instead of "we don't want anybody to get beat like a drum".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I think for second-graders

I've seen this at least a couple of times in the thread & I'm a little confused where 2nd grade came into the picture.

My kid is 10, he just started 5th grade (albeit his birthday is toward the end of the school year). But at 9 y/o, aren't we talking about a mix of 3rd & 4th graders at least?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I've really seen nothing to suggest that this is a "just-for-fun" league,

Except for the entire premise of this story.

They don't want a kid that's too good. That's the essence of "just for fun".

The president angle would be damning if true, but I just don't buy it. The mother seems like a psycho.

[Tekneek]

Indeed. You can't move him up solely because of his pitching ability. It will hurt him more in the long run. His entire game needs to be ready for a move, or it could stunt his development or leave him jaded and ready to give it up prematurely.

Instead of whining about this kid's pitching ability, they need to celebrate it and hope that they can find a few more players that appear to be prodigies in the league. It gives them something to aim for, instead of something to bitch about. The league leadership, coaches, and other parents suck for taking the wrong attitude here. They are teaching all the other kids terrible things and doing even more harm to Jericho Scott (who should never have to feel guilty about being the best pitcher in his league).

When my dad coached hockey, he had a kid who could score goals from anywhere in the rink because his shot was incredible. I watched him score goals from center ice on faceoffs, even. He routinely dominated the league in points. My dad tried to spread it around, but you can't keep the kid on the bench just because nobody in the league can stop him. When he moved up, he struggled a bit more but eventually did the same thing at that level as well. If they had moved him up earlier just because of his skills, he would've struggled way too much. I don't know if anybody complained about him back then, but the league never pressured him to sit the kid and other teams never packed their bags and left over it. They saw it as a challenge to overcome, which is what sports is really about anyway. Not to teach you how to bitch and moan, but how to overcome challenges and deal with setbacks.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

The president angle would be damning if true, but I just don't buy it.

Then, politely put, you're a hell of a lot more trusting of people than I am.

And I draw an entirely different basis from the article as written. Again, I'm not seeing a have-some-fun league here, otherwise would we even know who the past champion was? I'm seeing a pretty normal league with some folks unable or unwilling to deal with a kid they didn't expect having success for a team that they aren't affiliated with.

And, as others have mentioned, the description of the pitcher in question doesn't seem all that out of the ordinary. I would think 40 mph pitchers could be found in at least 1/3rd of the leagues at this age level (albeit with spotty control). It's definitely not as though they're throwing Doc Gooden out there in his prime to pitch to toddlers.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Except for the entire premise of this story.

They don't want a kid that's too good. That's the essence of "just for fun".

The president angle would be damning if true, but I just don't buy it. The mother seems like a psycho.

I guess your definition of "just for fun" and my definition are completely different. "Just for fun" IMO would be no keeping score, no winners or losers, no defending champions. Just a bunch of kids thrown together just to play baseball and learn the fundamentals of the game. Based on this story, that does not seem to be the case.

[Sgran]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

If fact, to scare you even more, my 7 year old daughter is being recruited by 4 teams right now because of her pitching ability. One team, which we don't like, has gone so far as to offer her a fully funded spot on the team (they'll pay for her uniform, registration fees, tourny fees, etc.) plus pay for her pitching lessons (which run $50 per 1 hour session).

tell me this isn't true.

[flounder]

Interesting follow-up on this story over at Deadspin. The author definitely has his own axe to grind, but it's a different perspective.

[DaddyTorgo]

interesting follow-up flounder...thanks

[AgustusM]

missed this story the first time around and I had to add my two cents. I currently coach an 11and under travel team and have been coaching youth sports since 1985.

at least in our league, at 8 there is a two inning maximum per game and there are usually 5-6 pitchers in the league that routinely strike out 6 almost every time they pitch. No one complains that is just the way it is. At the end of the year the 8's have a travel all star team and all of a sudden when everyone is an all star - they start getting hit. The best adjust, some can't handle it.

By 9 we start having travel teams and by 10 even the worst in house players don't strike out every time.

[NiteMaestro]

I think he should be allowed to play.
I do understand the parent's concern of their kids being hurt physically or emotionally. And as far as being beaned... That is a legitimate concern.

But the emotional hurt? That's part of growing up! We need to face someone that's just that much better than us so we learn how to cope! That's how kids learn the value of practicing, working hard, strategy, etc.!
It's part of the game!

That being said, I'm somewhat afraid to move the kid up to a older league... Given their ages, the difference in moving him up is enormous, because the competitive spirit of the older kids is something he's never had to experience and shouldn't experience until his own maturity kindles the fire in him as well.

One of the earlier posts suggested a limit on innings pitched... I think that would be a good idea.
Though I disagree in principle, it does accomplish the goal of letting him play, and keeping the other kids safe(r).

Or another idea (perhaps already posted), why not let him pitch for both teams? 4 innings for his own, and 2 for the opposing squad?
Just an idea, cause I remember how, when I was younger, someone that was THAT good became 'all-time' whatever... i.e., all-time batter, or all-time QB, or something like that. That way they played where they play best, and the competitive advantage was somewhat lost.

[NiteMaestro]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Indeed. You can't move him up solely because of his pitching ability. It will hurt him more in the long run. His entire game needs to be ready for a move, or it could stunt his development or leave him jaded and ready to give it up prematurely.

Instead of whining about this kid's pitching ability, they need to celebrate it and hope that they can find a few more players that appear to be prodigies in the league. It gives them something to aim for, instead of something to bitch about. The league leadership, coaches, and other parents suck for taking the wrong attitude here. They are teaching all the other kids terrible things and doing even more harm to Jericho Scott (who should never have to feel guilty about being the best pitcher in his league).

When my dad coached hockey, he had a kid who could score goals from anywhere in the rink because his shot was incredible. I watched him score goals from center ice on faceoffs, even. He routinely dominated the league in points. My dad tried to spread it around, but you can't keep the kid on the bench just because nobody in the league can stop him. When he moved up, he struggled a bit more but eventually did the same thing at that level as well. If they had moved him up earlier just because of his skills, he would've struggled way too much. I don't know if anybody complained about him back then, but the league never pressured him to sit the kid and other teams never packed their bags and left over it. They saw it as a challenge to overcome, which is what sports is really about anyway. Not to teach you how to bitch and moan, but how to overcome challenges and deal with setbacks.

+1

When your opponent is THAT good, you are driven even more to better yourself to stop him. It helps the entire sport.

Look at Michael Jordan, for example.
Because he was so dominating, so good, the entire sport changed for the better (IMO at least) and more players began to arrive that would equal (if not surpassed) his talent level. One phenom makes everyone else better because everyone tries to emulate them, or beat them.

[Klinglerware]

But the followup story mentions that he only has a 47mph fastball (about 60mph, if you used the "MLB equivalent" that ESPN uses in their Little League coverage).

Apparently, there was a lot of hype and very little fact-checking in that story