Pitch the slugger or the cancer vic?

The BBQ Pit
81

So it’s only okay sometimes? When is that, then, if there’s no rule about it.

And you keep thinking of 9 and 10 year old rec league kids as Barry Bonds. I know baseball, and I know kids. I’m not even sure you know baseball.

It’s not?? A PONY league for 9 and 10 year olds is not for fun? I think we’ve stumbled upon your basic problem here.

Wow. That manager is uncanny. He knew that his team would be playing in a game against a manager that would pull a dick move that nobody had done all year long, just so that his team could lose the game but would give the other team a pyrrhic victory! Wow, you truly are a baseball genius.

No, you’re changing around what you asked. Moving in because you know the kid can’t hit that far makes you look like a pussy. In the last co-ed softball team I played in, they had to put a line around the outfield to keep guys like you from creeping way in whenever a girl was at bat. Some guys need a tangible line to know when to stop being dishonorable.

No, I said you weren’t morally obliged to make the play on the faster child. Why change up the wording - quite dishonorable, but then you like to manipulate the rules to your favor.

I appreciate your concern, but a “real shit” or “shithead” don’t quite mean the same thing as “cunt”, do they? I mean, can you give me a word that expresses the same level of ire as “cunt”? “Shithead” is Steve Martin’s dog in “The Jerk” for crying out loud. Cunt also conveys an element of dishonor, as well, as in the Police’s use of the term (“Billy’s joined the National Front, he always was a little runt. He’s got his hand in the air with the other cunts. You’ve got to humanize yourself.”) I’m open to other suggestions, but “cocksucker” is now verboten.

82

Okay, then you must feel it would be okay to do it all season long, right? Again, we’re talking about 9 and 10 year olds in community baseball. There no draft to select the best players, and the worst players get their chances to play. There will be multiple instances during a game of someone batting in front of someone who can’t hit a lick. Should they always be intentionally walked? Why not?

Again, there seems to be a great deal of difficulty with people understanding that 9 and 10 year old rec league baseball is different than Barry Bonds, Shaq, Jerry Rice, Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux, Alex Rodriguez… Those are professionals playing in a league of selected professionals. The Giants are not compelled to take Romney on their team, are they?

83

It would be helpful for you to read the thread. As I said, the non-competitive rules were relaxed for this game and the slugger was walked ONCE. You’re honestly telling me you don’t know the difference between “once” and “every time”? You seemed concerned for the little guy that he didn’t get to play. I was trying to assuage your fears and reassure you that he most certainly did get his chance.

Changing my wording…quite dishonorable :rolleyes: Actually, what I said was that intentional walking isn’t appropriate in every situation with a given player at ANY level of the game, and I was using Barry Bonds as an example of that. If intentionally walking a batter every time he came up to the plate was the proper strategy, I’d think the poster child for that would be Bonds. And yet he doesn’t get walked every time. Go figure.

You’re misinterpreting me. This isn’t a sandlot game, and it isn’t an exhibition game and it isn’t even a game in the beginning of the season when everyone’s getting their teams to work together. This is a CHAMPIONSHIP game. You know what that word means, right? Have you ever heard the word “championship” in relation to something that ISN’T a competition?

Come up with a better explanation than “he drew names out of a hat,” and maybe you’d have something.

Actually I said he makes bunts a lot. Who’s changing around words?

I apologize for misinterpreting you. Perhaps you could avoid mishaps like these in the future by explaining your position a little further than “you’re just being a cunt again.”

84

For pete’s sake, you ARE a moron aren’t you?

I’ll direct you to the words in Frank’s post “IF THE SITUATION CALLS FOR IT.” If you need help looking any of those up, just ask. Right now you’re just embarassing yourself.

85

Of course.

Nonsense. They are playing the same game, with their peers.

What, precisely, do you believe is an appropriate age for children to begin to learn the strategies and nuances of a sport?

86

But if it’s a competition, the situation will always be the case that you’re better off putting the best hitter on first and getting an automatic out, right? When would you be better off with the likelihood of someone getting into scoring position before you get an out?

If you think the talent level of 9 and 10 year olds is equivalent, I’d invite you to actually attend a little league game and see for yourself.

Probably at the point that you establish that your league isn’t open to all comers. For example, I’ve already said that you should find a travel team for your superstar if you want them to play with all the strategies and nuances of the sport. On the other hand, if you are going to participate in an open rec league for 9 and 10 year olds, you better understand that the purpose of such a league is different.

87

I should point out that the last two quotes in my post are from Frank’s post.

88

They are learning to play the game. It is not the same game. It has different rules that assure participation by all, and place limits on success.

That’s really up to the parents, isn’t it?

One of my children is in sports, and whether it be Soccer, Gymnastics, swimming, t-ball, little league, or what have you, the leagues fall into two categories.

You have your competitive league for children who know the fundamentals and are looking to compete and get serious. And, you have your participatory league that gets kids acquainted and familiar with the sport and allows only a small amount of competition. These latter leagues are important because they allow the casual untalented kid to participate without embarassment, allow neophytes to the sport to acquainted with it and see if they have an interest, allow beginning serious players to develop skills. They are more social leagues. Competition is secondary.

It is like if you are teaching your kid chess. As the kid picks up the game it really isn’t important who wins. That’s not the point. The point is to pick up familiarity, understanding and buid affinity for the game. Some competition is necessary, otherwise the game doesn’t have a frame to support interest, but it needs to be both limited and secondary.

Clearly, the league the cancer kid was playing in was of this type of league rather than the full on competitive league.

I coached my daughter’s soccer and it literally drove me crazy to constantly remember the purpose. It was stressed to us. We are teaching the sport, and teamwork, and sportsmanship and providing fun. We are doing so within the context of a competive sport, but only marginally so.

In the article, clearly the umpire thought it was bad form. The Cancer kid’s team pitched to the opposing team’s slugger. The fact that every gets to bat every inning and that their is a limit to runs is strongly indicative that the primary goal is not strictly competition, but to participate. Walking the slugger violates this participatory goal in two ways. First, the slugger doesn’t get his fair chance to hit a ball, and secondly the cancer kid becomes the target of strategy far beyond the spirit of the league and suffers for it.

It’s got to be tough at that age to be in a participatory league and get picked on, not just by the kids, but by the opposing team’s coach who’s strategy serves to highlight the cancer kid’s inadequacy.

The whole format of the league is to encourage participation without putting the kids into these kinds of positions.

89

This is a ridiculous rationalization. These kids aren’t pros, or college players, or high school players, or junior high school players. For many kids this will be the extent of their baseball playing. Even the biggest scrub in the pros was a star athlete in high school. The league is for fun, to get the greatest number of participants. It helps the weakest the most. after a couple more years there will be try outs for JV and most kids will never touch a glove again.

I for one think the shithead coach missed a big opportunity. Rather than take the easy way out and pitch to the kid who could barely swing, why not tell has manly boys “Okay guys, we can take the easy way out here and put the game on the shoulders on little Romney, and we’d probably be assured the win. Or we can put the game in the hands of our pitcher and fileders and thier best batter. If we winn the first way, well, we won. But if we win the second way, it’ll probably feel a lot better. So what do you think guys, would you rather beat their worst player or their best?”

…or something like that. Something that points to the reality that winning isn’t everything. Even if he was describing his decision after the fact. The perfect thing would have been for Romney to hit a foul ball directly into the shithead coach’s face. What an asshole.

By the way, I think that Romney’s parents made a big mistake here, as well. The kid felt bad enough. Instead of downplaying it, saying that even the best guys strike out, they put a spotlight on his condition. He could have been just another “goat of the day”, instead he is “the permanent liability”. Dumb move. On the other hand, for Romney’s dad to find this coach afterward and slap him around a little asking, "So how does it feel to be slapped around by the weakling’s dad, pussy, might not have been a bad idea. :smiley:

90

Well said, Scylla.

91

Given a one-run game and two outs in the inning:

You obviously don’t walk the guy with the bases loaded to tie the game. I probably wouldn’t walk him with no one on either, since only a homer would tie the game.

Those are just two where it wouldn’t be good baseball to intentionally walk.

You seem to be having trouble with the idea that “it’s a competition” and playing according to the rules AND honorably can all coexist. They can, and usually do. “It’s a competition” and the drive to win doesn’t necessarily mean “win at all costs.”

92

These are both good points, and I’ll concede my particular line of argument is wrong.

I grew up in an earlier era, before children’s sports became as stratified as it is now. I expect that influences my feelings. I must say, as far as sports go, I think those days were better, but that’s a different thread.

93

I coached my son’s teams (head coach once, every other time as an assistant) every year except one from tee-ball up to his last year of Little League. FWIW, which may not be much, never once, not at any time, not in the regular season or the play-offs, did I ever see a player intentionally walked. Again, never, not once.

And there’s a reason for that, which is exactly the one on which you’re inadvertently shining a light. There are always players in the league, and generally at least one or two on each team, who are outstanding–special, special athletes, at least compared to their competition. I’m talking about kids who hit at or around .500 and have more extra base hits than singles. I’m not exaggerating, I’ve seen the stats. At this level of play, the talent level is GREATLY different. So, if you’re looking for “when the situation calls for it,” it would be every single time such a kid came to the plate. Every time it would be within the rules and the absolutely best percentage play to call. Such is the nature of Little League at that level; such is the disparity in the level of play. And there was also the spoken sentiment in every league I was associated with that the best thing for the kids was let 'em hit, let 'em pitch. That was the best lesson for them. That kid’s a tough hitter? Okay, then you better pitch your best.

So, in every league I’ve seen or been involved in–just as was apparently the practice in the league in this article–the unwritten (but never deviated from) rule is that you pitch to whomever is in the batter’s box. If the best kid on the other team is up, so be it. If the worst kid is up, them’s the breaks too. But nobody orchestrated who they wanted to pitch to, for the reasons I mentioned. If that was the practice, it would be predictable, and pretty unsatisfying for just about everbody involved.

So, no argument that they operated within the rules. But they were pricks who took advantage of a situation in a way they did not at any other time during the regular season. Period. They were teaching the kids a lesson about rules? Bullshit. Otherwise they’d have done it about a zillion times that year. They wanted to win, and they didn’t care if that kid paid the price for it. That may be fine by you. But that’s what they did.

94

I have absolutly no problem with ANY coach who plays within the rules to optimize his team’s chances for winning. That is nearly a complete job discription for the game-time duties of a coach. When there is an obviously advantagious stratagy available, not to avail oneself of it is tantimount to throwing the game, and how in og’s name can that be contorted into “good sportsmanship?”

If the rules allow a stratagy that is considered bad form, then the fault is with the rules, not the coach.
If the league had wanted to discourage or even eleminate intentional walks, they could have easilly structured the rules to that effect.

For example:

-If a batter is pitched four balls with less than two strikes, the next player walks also.
-If a player is pitched four balls with NO strikes, the next TWO players also walk.
-If, prior to any pitch being thrown, the catcher moves to a position where he would be unable to catch a ball which crossed the plate, then the the batter and the next THREE players walk.
One thing that has not been brought up is that this is EXACTLY the reason for setting up leagues that are segregated by skill level. If this is not done, then the mediocre players are always going to be shit upon.
Q: If “fun leagues” were ONLY for fun, then why bother keeping score at all?

A: Because winning is fun…for the winners.

95

Umm, excuse me, but this is the SDMB. You’re not allowed to do that. You’re supposed to become intractable, hostile, obfuscate facts, make accusations and call people names.

Conceding is bad form.

I know exactly how you feel. I felt the same way. Turns out I was wrong. It actually is better this way.

Growing up we took sports and the humiliation you can get from them pretty seriously. Lots of kids didn’t play because they sucked and they never got the chance to get better because of it. Others didn’t play cause they didn’t want to be humiliated. Others did and got humiliated.

Kids nowadays can sample a wide variety of sports in a casual manner without fear of humiliation or the necessity of making a huge commitment to acquire competance. When they find what they like and they are ready physically and psychologically they can compete. Beleive me, the competition can be very fierce and the school of hardknocks we knew as kids is even harder than before.

My daughter’s tried soccer, t-ball, gymnastics, riding… etc. The sport she loves is swimming. When she first got started she was doing these friendly “learn the sport” type invitationals.

Now it’s all business. At the level she’s competing my six year old is up against nine year olds. That’s the bracket, 6-9.

She missed qualifying for this state meet by 2 seconds and was pretty busted up about it.

96

That’s a stupid rule. No wonder nobody wrote it down.

97

Actually, it makes a lot of sense, because at that level, rarely is a ball stopped by the first player it comes to. Furthermore, it is rare for a pair of players to be able to complete a throw and catch successfully. Thus, a runner could likely take second on any hit, and take third on the subsequent efforts to throw the ball to the proper base. Since there is no catcher, the runner could take home every time. So, each batter gets an inside the park home run. Yeah, that’s great.

Plus, since there is a limit to the number of runs scored each inning, it would take away at least three other kids chances to hit. Since participation and experience are valued above winning, it would go against the purpose of the game.

To all: I have gotten a bit heated in this thread. I apologize for doing so, and for calling people names. I recognize that other people have a different opinion of this. Clearly some people are talking about the matter with no experience or understanding. However, while I regret the way I expressed my anger, I still regard such behavior as unacceptable, without honor, and really, honestly, pretty unmanly.

98

And if there is any better spur for gaining skill at something you actually can be good at than humiliation (or more accurately, by losing or playing poorly), I don’t know what it is. And if you can’t be good at it no matter how hard you try, then, just as you mention, you go find something else.

I think the difference then was that the desire, the drive, the push to gain skill came from within the kids. We played on vacant lots, on school fields in the summer, in back yards, continually and without being judged and carped at by adults. Instead of the natural weeding out process, many children now, not all by any means, but many, are pushed by parents or by coaches to excel at something they really have no taste or no inclination towards.

99

I’d say that the coach’s actions made him a good coach and a bad person. It’s up to him to decide which is more important in his life but I think he made a poor choice.

100

However you slice it and dice it, the sick kid was playing baseball, in an “everyone bats” league, and the big crime of the other team was, well, pitching to him. Now we have complete strangers, like Reilly and KRM, feeling completely qualified to cast judgment on this coach for requiring the kid to come up and bat when he apparently joined an “everybody bats” league of his own free will.

I know we’re all just a little testy these days what with the war and the heat, but sometimes, really people, what with the “you sipped your soda and refilled it” and “that fat child is in public!” and “they pitched to a baseball player in a baseball game” other completely stupid threads, it’s not a bad idea to just take a deep breath and think, “I don’t have to be outraged about this, for there are a wide range of more sophisticated emotions that could be exercised,” and, “let me examine this from different perspectives,” and “I shall cast no more judgment than I’m able given the information I have,” and finally, “hell, I’m going to get off my computer and go for a walk, get my blood pressure down, and maybe smell a few flowers.”

Helpfully,

  • Walter