Ross hit the nail on the head. Children love challenges. They understand the logic (for want of a better word) innately, intuitively. The bigger the challenge, the better.

For your information, as I write, I’m wondering whether what I’m saying is worthy to be posted here, let alone significant. A big thanks to the ‘education’ I was given.

-bz-

Let the kids play, just how we played when we were kids (meaning those who actually played baseball).

This entire story and the debate that has followed is typical of our world today. I wouldn’t expect anything less in today’s era (unfortunately).

Ross

You can ban a pitcher for pitching to slow but not too fast? According to the argument it is the principle of “banning” for athletic ability that is inappropriate. Jericho’s banning is simply an example of the principle being argued. Meaning Jericho is only an example of the principle that banning due to ability is wrong. However, the author states in their rebuttal that they would ban for physical ability (albeit in the other direction). Either the author has drawn up a straw man in defense of his “banning” argument or he supports children on one end of the continuum (the athletic kids). I doubt either of these are true, but the author would be helped by critically thinking through his discussion before posting.

Also, the author contends that “Kids from prior generations did just fine without the need to remove a player who may have been a little bit better than the others.” This is an absolutely unprovable contention. In fact, one could even argue that if sports are used as a teaching tools of teamwork, motivation, persistence, etc. in the past, then one could certainly argue that the economic and political decisions that have occurred in the past 3 days (Lehman, AIG, Fannie May, Freddie Mac) were being run by individuals that adhered to this set of principles. If this is the case then these principles are associated with the exact opposite outcome that we are seeking. This conclusion sounds absurd and make no mistake it very much is absurd, as is any argument based on “It was better way back when” or “in the old days we never acted like this” is.

“Sport involves risk, as does life, which is one of the reasons why kids should be encouraged to play.”

This argument taken to its logical conclusion leads directly to arguing that if anything is involved in life then we should expose kids to it in another form. Crime, violence, death, etc. Again, critical reasoning here allows for the discussion to go in a completely different direction than the author intends (Fighting involves confrontation, as does life, so kids should do it). Further, there is absolutely no evidence provided that shows that the conclusion is true (participating in activities with risk for injury increases success in life which includes risk for injury or failure.) In fact, I would believe that the opposite is more likely to be true (participating in activities involving greater levels of risk is associated with more negative life outcomes – dropping out of high school, drug use, prison). However, this is an empirical question (i.e. one only research can answer).

I believe that in the court of public opinion, we are wise to recognize sound argument based on research or critical reasoning. One must analyze the logical conclusion of an argument and the inherent values imbedded within before responding.

If only everyone else in the world thought this way

That is a value statement…

My three boys all went through little league, as well as pee wee football. They had bumps and bruises every week. Football was much rougher than baseball. The pee wee league is serious business around here. These kids played like the super bowl was on the line. The bumps and the bruises helped mold my boys into the men that they are today.

This 9 year old child should not be shunned, nor should fellow players avoid him. The other teams should jump at the opportunity to face a fast yet accurate pitcher. What better way to prepare for the next level? In another year or so, they would all be moving on to the 10+ year old league, where they will be throwing much harder than even the best 9 year old.

And let’s not forget that youngsters try out for little league. These are not complete beginners. First there is a t-ball league, then minor league, and then tryouts for little league. The players who are not ready for little league stay in the minor league, where the coaches pitch the ball.

Let the boys play.

Mom L.

I appreciate the response, and considering that it is your last, I hope you will at least read mine as well.

I do agree that the situation should have never occurred. As I said, there were better ways to present the option for moving up to another level. By simply presenting the level adjustment as a reward, Jericho would have likely jumped at the opportunity and enjoyed the “bragging rights” that would have accompanied it.

As for your argument against number 2, once again, I’ve been involved at the ground level in little league. In my few years of coaching, we had pitchers who were throwing right around the level of Jericho. It is not as uncommon as you may believe. 30 to 40 mph is actually very reasonable for this age. In our little league, almost all of the pitchers would have been banned if they couldn’t surpass these speeds.

The average reader however doesn’t know this, as they haven’t been there in the dugout. It all falls back to the sensationalism by the media. Perhaps the initial reporter never played baseball. His or her initial (uninformed) stance has now snowballed, leaving everyone with a Nolan Ryan perception.

No one is suggesting that a fastball doesn’t carry with it some risk. It comes with the territory. That’s baseball… But the decision to oust Jericho was never about that 40 mph mark. If that were the case, it would mean that all prospective players should have radar run against their fastballs. For example, what about another player who throws 35 mph, which converts to 51.33 fps? Should that too be considered excessive? Where do we draw the line? We cannot rid our children of risk. These young boys were not batting against Roger Clemens. It just so happened that one pitcher was slightly better than the others. Little league is little league. There are countless 9 and 10 year olds throughout the country who throw just as hard (some harder) than Jericho.

Baseball has been around in the USA for well over 100 years. Kids from prior generations did just fine without the need to remove a player who may have been a little bit better than the others. This situation would have never happened years ago. It wouldn’t even have been discussed. I can still remember as a 9 year old playing for the Sons of Italy. I was beaned by one of the best pitchers in the league, who happened to be 12 years old. It didn’t feel good, but I shook it off and took first base with pride.

I am not suggesting that our kids should be hit with baseballs, but Jericho is said to have exceptional control, and has never hit anyone. The entire story has league politics written all over it, which is a damn shame. Jericho is good, so what? Let the kid play if he wants to play. He is only 9 years old and isn’t anywhere as dangerous a pitcher as the media would like everyone to believe. If he is dangerous, so are thousands of other little league players throughout the country.

Little league baseball is a fun sport for kids to enjoy, and that includes Jericho Scott. We must encourage our children to work hard and excel, particularly when they come from neighborhoods such as his (I know New Haven very well, as I live in the same small state). We need more kids playing baseball. We don’t need to be forcing kids from the league.

Sport involves risk, as does life, which is one of the reasons why kids should be encouraged to play. Our kids need to learn this, and should welcome the challenge to face Jericho. No team should have ever walked off the field because of his presence. That alone sends a terrible message to the kids who were forced to boycott.

I’ve wasted enough time on this topic, so I suppose we must agree to disagree.

Ross

I do agree with #3; this situation never should have occurred. When a situation reaches such a critical mass, all parties involved must absorb at least some of the blame (league administrators, coaches of both teams, and parents). That is embarrassing for both teams (and frustrating for parents who may have taken off work to watch their children play).

As for #1, two things. First, the statement: Everyone but his own parents wanted him out of the league for their own interests. What are the parent’s interests? Unless parents gain directly some unforeseen benefit (parents really want a trophy for their mantel) by moving the child up, I assume it was done in the interests of all the other children? I have a hard time condemning parents looking out for their children especially when the alternative is the development of 1 child compared to the development of at least 17 other children (8 on his team probably didn’t get much experience fielding . Second, the statement: Are their guidelines in place? There were guidelines in place, parents did not follow, league did not respond effectively leading to #3.

As far as #2 goes, I went back to my physics textbooks and did some rough calculations. I calculated meters per second, velocity, force, area, and pressure all assuming approximately 40 mph (58.67 fps). Assuming the force per area (MPa) required to break an average bone is 170 MPa, a 40 mph pitch carries with it 200.295 MPa, more than enough to break an adult bone on contact. Also, given the “developmental” league (e.g., kids are not well-developed, reaction times are slower, inexperienced, etc.), we can reasonably assume they are more likely to be hit by a pitch as a function of their lack of experience/reaction time. To summarize, sure a 40 mph isn’t mindblowingly fast, the force it carries should be taken into account (e.g., if someone chucks a 40 mph at me, I’m moving). Arguing to a parent and/or medical care professional that 40 mph isn’t a big deal isn’t a great argument. If it can break an average bone, it can do significant damage to sensitive growth plates, neurological functioning (read subdural hemotoma), dental (realigning a jaw with accompanying orthodontic work is expensive).

I will state strongly that I disagree with #4. If the parents are unhappy, disagree with league, or think that the league is unfair, they have every right to leave the league. As a private organization, the league’s purpose is whatever purpose they want it to be (developmental, competition, no score, self-esteem development, tiring kids out so they sleep better at night, whatever). We may reasonably assume the purpose here was to encourage the enjoyment of baseball in a safe and constructive atmosphere (although the whole league sponsor, defending league champion stuff does not lend credence their argument). If parent’s don’t like a league’s decision, they may leave the league. This shouldn’t be the natural conclusion (e.g., if a league ignores its players and parents then the league probably won’t exist very long.). The league should choose to move/place children while working with the parents (this is most effective when it works directly with the parents, but this is not necessary).

Second, we know nothing of the “enthusiasm” exhibited by the other coaches and league officials in presenting the alternatives to the child. Any conclusions or arguments derived from such guessing is inappropriate and unfounded. I do agree, however, that the presentation of the opportunity should have been (and was) a great accomplishment by the child.

I also agree that the reasonable alternative was to have him play a different position (2nd base). This worked to everyone’s favor — he was challenged in another position and other kids probably actually hit the ball to him. If he wanted to pitch the opportunity was available in a different league. Again, the choice is the league’s NOT the parents as to which league is most appropriate for him (outside of any possible discriminatory practices as put forth by race, color, religion, sex, sexual preference, or national origin, of course).

Again, I appreciate dialogue. I must also admit I am avid sports enthusiast as well as developmental neuropsychologist who enjoys looking at both sides of a discussion (or at least presenting the other side).

I don’t care how good his arm is, he is still a 9 year old with emotions. He should not have been forced into a decision. If the league put his interests at the forefront, they would have communicated the option to advance in a much more positive manner. I find it difficult to believe that anyone can defend the course of action taken by the league.

Children must be communicated to as children. Focus on rewards and positive outcomes, rather than forcing decisions. Forcing a child into such a decision would raise the eyebrows of any childhood psychologist.

Hans

PS To the mods, please keep email anonymous

Philip – I applaud your conviction (yes, I read what you had to say, so I hope you take the time to read my full response), but I do not agree with your analogy. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I am guessing that you do not have hands on experience as a coach. I make this statement based on the simple fact that Jericho Scott’s abilities have been grossly exaggerated by the media. Anyone involved in coaching can see this from a mile away. I coached little league (and previously minor league, which is a step below little league) while finishing my Master’s degree. It was a fun gig and the kids all had a blast. It was good old fashioned baseball without the politics. My comments come from my own direct, personal experience.

To summarize the discussion:

1. League parents (of other children) did not make this decision in the interest of Jericho Scott. The decision had nothing to do with fostering his development. Everyone but his own parents wanted him out of the league for their own interests. Where do we draw the line with asking a child to leave the league? Are their guidelines in place? Once another team or player begins to excel, should we ask them to leave? Most rationale adults will answer “no” to this final question, but that is exactly what happened in this case.

2. The media has grossly sensationalized the abilities of this 9 year old. A 40 mph fastball is not reason to run and protect our kids. It really isn’t that hard of a fastball. Head over to your local high school baseball team and ask to throw a few balls under the radar. You’ll see exactly what I am talking about.

3. How can anyone justify the fact that another team walked off the field after he took the mound? What lessons did these children learn? What message did the coaches send their 9 and 10 year olds by boycotting the game against a fellow 9 year old? How does this foster personal development? Who has improved or positively developed from the boycott?

4. No 9 year old should be forced to leave the league without his (and his parents) consent. His parents deserved the respect of being involved in the discussion. Jericho should have been given the right (ie. a privilege) to advance if he so desired. The league made a poor decision in its handling of this case. If they had simply asked Jericho if would like the “privilege” of being “selected” by the older team, he would have likely jumped at the opportunity. A few simple changes in word choice would have given Jericho the impression that he had an opportunity (ie. a positive situation). The fact that the league did not approach Jericho with such enthusiasm once again shows that this decision was never about Jericho. And once again, the league’s poor handling of the situation is one of my real problems with this case, and is largely what caused me to write about this topic initially.

5. This is an informal blog. I state my opinion on my blog, and I will continue to do so. That’s it. Nothing more and nothing else.

Ross