Rick Reilly raises ethical dillema in youth sports

Dog --
I already answered that question, but when I caught in little league, I wouldn't have even looked into the dugout. I'd have stood up and put my hand out for the free pass.

If it happened on the sandlot, the kid would have been pitched to in the broadest sense of the word. He wouldn't have gotten anythign good to hit, that's for sure.

The game is the game.

 

you, sir, are the coach i would NEVER let my kids -- emphasis on KIDS -- play for. in all my years as a little league coach and parent, i've never even heard any parent or kid say, "walk this kid!" man, you just don't get it, do you?

 

He's up because at that level of Pony League, EVERY kid takes a turn at-bat. So your batting lineup would have 12 kids, instead of nine, no matter who is playing the field. So taking him out was not an option.

Here's where I think you and others arguing "I would have done the same thing" don't get it.

First, at nine and 10, the kids really don't give two shits about winning. I mean, they're competitive, they know the score, and they'll be happy for the moment, but my experience is that it's forgotten tomorrow. It's the coaches who beat their breast about how they're frickin' Joe Torre because they won the title.

Second, I agree that the kid shouldn't get "special" treatment. My son this year -- same level of Pony League -- had a kid on his team who had only one working hand a la Jim Abbott. No special treatment was asked, nor any demanded (plus, the kid already had the Abbott-style glove shift down). But intentionally walking the stud to get to this kid WAS "special" treatment. The other coaches picked on this kid because they knew he was going to strike out.

Third, cancer or not, as a youth coach for anyone under say, age 12, you DO NOT do anything outside of the normal flow of the game to set a kid up to fail. If the stud, say, struck out (and knowing Pony League as I do, I would suspect the opposing team's best pitcher was closing out), and THEN the cancer kid struck out, no harm done. Sure, he'd be disappointed, but it wouldn't be as if the opposing coaches were singling him out. (Generally, by 13 and above, most kids have stopped trying out different sports and have picked the one they want. Of course, many have done so long before then, but by 13 the kids just in it to try it out are gone.)

Fourth, speaking of singling out, in the Salt Lake Tribune column I read on this, it was noted this was the first time ALL YEAR these coaches had called for an IBB. So spare me the "good baseball strategy" thing. I'm sure there were many situations, especially in the playoffs, where an IBB would have worked wonders. And yet they saved it for the LAST BATTER of the season, a kid they knew couldn't hit in part because of the SHUNT IN HIS HEAD.

Fifth, the reason there are no-score leagues is to prevent adults from pulling this kind of crap. Kids keep score, but they don't let losses gnaw over them like adults do. Also, kids tend to worry about their own performance more, which is natural, because they're just figuring out how to play the game. With a no-score league, the adults get the idea that development, not winning, is the point.

Sixth, I think the kids did learn some valuable lessons in this situation. They learned that adults and authority figures can be amoral dickheads. They learned that there are people in this world who value winning over everything else, no matter what the cost to their souls. They learned that there are people who still get outraged about this. They learned why so many kids quit sports. They learned that adults use their children for their own glory, no matter what the effect on the children.

 

amen. there are lessons in everything. and this would serve as a great life-lesson to my kids about what a dick the manager is. 8) 8) 8)r

 

Damien --
Why was the worst batter hitting behind the best? That's my question.

I have offered a possible explanation that, if true, makes the other coach look like the asshole.

The rest of you piling on late should read the whole thread. I coach youth sports. I'd be fine with instructional leagues. In fact, every year I get up in a board meeting and argue with some parents who want to change our squirt hockey leage from an equally divided, everybody gets to play an equal amount instructional league to a competitive league.

But once you add in a playoff system and such, the coaches are obligated to play to win and to begin to introduce strategy into the game. You don't like it, fine.

But don't blame the coaches for playing under the rules of the league.

 

A while back, Reilly wrote a column about youth sports and the parents involved in them. Some of the incidents he noted were sickening. The messed up things parents do to their children will never cease to amaze me.

But in that column, he had one line that stood out (and I'm paraphrasing, since it's been a while): Your kid, the one you swear will be the next Ken Griffey Jr., he's in the outfield right now filling his glove with dirt.

That's what we're talking about here -- a team of kids who are all, for the most part, just as likely to be filling their gloves with dirt in the outfield as they are worrying about what's happening at the plate. They don't give two shits if you pitch to the star. Hell, they probably don't even know he is the star. They'd like to win, sure. But more important to them is where they're going for ice cream after the game and whether or not they can go swimming tomorrow.

In the meantime, we've got dad over here comparing batting averages and calling for intentional walks. Just pathetic.

And the argument that the star might not get anything to hit on the sandlot is bullshit. This is what little league is supposed to be -- glorified sandlot baseball. The parents aren't there to make great managerial decisions during the game. That's why they've got these rules about every kid hitting -- if they didn't, some asshole would stick the worst player on the bench and never let him out of the dugout. The coaches organize the practices, teach the fundamentals of the game, teach sportsmanship and competition and teach the rules of the game. No more. The extent of game planning should be filling out the lineup.

It's a shame when kids can't enjoy themselves because of dumbass adults.

 

I'm going to guess that coach, rather than put all the top hitters at the top and the worst hitters and the bottom, mixed up his lineup. If he was trying to protect his top hitter, that certainly wouldn't be the way to do it.

I would disagree that having playoffs "obligates" the coaches to play to win. I mean, of course, they're trying to win. And there's nothing wrong with strategy such as, do I mix up my batting order, or put it in order of which kids hit the best? Or strategy such as positioning fielders. Or even stealing bases (though with about every ninth pitch getting by the catcher, all you need to do is wait for a pitch to go to the backstop, rather than call a stolen base). I don't have a problem with mixing up the batting order to ensure you don't have an inning of your three easiest outs at bat. Or waving your arm to get a runner home.

But it doesn't "obligate" coaches to show up an opposing player in such a blatantly obvious way. The other pieces of strategy fit in with the flow of the game. An IBB is just sticking it to somebody, especially in this situation. Again, I go back to the fact that this was the first time all season the coaches saw fit to use it.

I would agree that there are parents who WANT this to be more competitive. But the adults are supposed to have the clear heads about this. The point at this age is developing players and developing their interest in the game. By the way, the cancer kid isn't only one who got spotlighted as incapable -- so did the pitcher the coach didn't trust to get the stud out.

 

Then have an instructional league, let them play other teams, keep score and give the best team a trophy at the end of the year without a playoff system.

I would have no problem with that. But I don't know of many leagues like that.

Where do you draw the line? If the kid with cancer is playing third, is the opposing leadoff hitter allowed to bunt at him? What if he's done so all year? What if he does it on his own?

Are you allowed to take an extra base on the kid in right, on the guess that he's not a very good player? Are you allowed to steal on a team with a weak catcher, if the league allows stealing?

Is the biggest kid allowed to pitch, even though he throws harder than anyone else? Are you allowed to teach your kids to hit the ball the other way, even though most LL coaches hide weaker defensive players on that side?

And if you think kids don't know where the weak players are even better than coaches, you're laughably naive. In pee wee hockey, I and most of my teammates could have given you a breakdown on who could play and who sucked on nearly every team in our state.

How are you going to eliminate strategy and still play baseball?

 

zeke

i'll blame the coaches all i want, thanks. our leagues are the same. but just because they're playoff games doesn't mean you coach like a dick. geez.

 

Excellent point, dog.

Coaches in one local league had home/away splits and even went as far as getting parents to scout future opponents. When I played (10-15 years ago), this wasn't a problem, at least on my teams.

 

Shockey, how about addressing the issue I raised instead of making overly vague generalizations?

If the slugger hits one out, has the coach done the right thing for his team?

Is the coach supposed to keep a running database on the maladies of all the kids in the league so as not to pick on anyone?

Where does this line of logic (not that you have put forth much) end?