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

[Logan]

ESPN - 9-year-old boy told he's too good to pitch - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3553475)

NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- Nine-year-old Jericho Scott is a good baseball player -- too good, it turns out.

The right-hander has a fastball that tops out at about 40 mph. He throws so hard that the Youth Baseball League of New Haven told his coach that the boy could not pitch any more. When Jericho took the mound anyway last week, the opposing team forfeited the game, packed its gear and left, his coach said.

Officials with the Youth Baseball League of New Haven say they will disband Jericho Scott's team because his coach won't stop him from pitching.

Officials for the three-year-old league, which has eight teams and about 100 players, said they will disband Jericho's team, redistributing its players among other squads, and offered to refund $50 sign-up fees to anyone who asks for it. They say Jericho's coach, Wilfred Vidro, has resigned.

But Vidro says he didn't quit and the team refuses to disband. Players and parents held a protest at the league's field on Saturday urging the league to let Jericho pitch.

"He's never hurt any one," Vidro said. "He's on target all the time. How can you punish a kid for being too good?"

The controversy bothers Jericho, who says he misses pitching.

"I feel sad," he said. "I feel like it's all my fault nobody could play."

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.

Jericho instead joined a team sponsored by Will Power Fitness. The team was 8-0 and on its way to the playoffs when Jericho was banned from pitching.

"I think it's discouraging when you're telling a 9-year-old you're too good at something," said his mother, Nicole Scott. "The whole objective in life is to find something you're good at and stick with it. I'd rather he spend all his time on the baseball field than idolizing someone standing on the street corner."

League attorney Peter Noble says the only factor in banning Jericho from the mound is his pitches are just too fast.

"He is a very skilled player, a very hard thrower," Noble said. "There are a lot of beginners. This is not a high-powered league. This is a developmental league whose main purpose is to promote the sport."

Noble acknowledged that Jericho had not beaned any batters in the co-ed league of 8- to 10-year-olds, but say parents expressed safety concerns.

"Facing that kind of speed" is frightening for beginning players, Noble said.

League officials say they first told Vidro that the boy could not pitch after a game on Aug. 13. Jericho played second base the next game on Aug. 16. But when he took the mound Wednesday, the other team walked off and a forfeit was called.

League officials say Jericho's mother became irate, threatening them and vowing to get the league shut down.

"I have never seen behavior of a parent like the behavior Jericho's mother exhibited Wednesday night," Noble said.

Scott denies threatening any one, but said she did call the police.

League officials suggested that Jericho play other positions, or pitch against older players or in a different league.

Local attorney John Williams was planning to meet with Jericho's parents Monday to discuss legal options.

"You don't have to be learned in the law to know in your heart that it's wrong," he said. "Now you have to be punished because you excel at something?"

Right or wrong? Discuss.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I saw this earlier. Just shaking my head, amazed at how much further into absurdity we continue to slide and at the same time not a bit surprised by it.

The last line of the story sums it up. Excellence is now something to be punished.

[JPhillips]

When I coached several years ago our team of seven year-olds had a kid that could throw straight and down the middle. For kids just coming off tee-ball he was devastating. We had several nine pitch, three K innings. We had a mandated inning limit for pitchers that kept him from dominating the league.

[SunDevil]

WTF is happening to our country? How the f$%k is this America?

[Young Drachma]

The pussification of America, continues, as some would say.

Hopefully, he gets to play on a travel team in a better league.

[Tigercat]

Now now Jon, this is so stupid that I don't think you should even try to attach it to any greater problems.

[samifan24]

Let the poor kid play. Just because he's better than everyone does not mean he should not play.

[Logan]

When I coached several years ago our team of seven year-olds had a kid that could throw straight and down the middle. For kids just coming off tee-ball he was devastating. We had several nine pitch, three K innings. We had a mandated inning limit for pitchers that kept him from dominating the league.

Wouldn't this be optimal for young hitters who are getting their first experience hitting "live" pitching? Is it better to be going up against a 7-year old who's sending a biting slider over the outside corner?

[miami_fan]

Let the poor kid play. Just because he's better than everyone does not mean he should not play.

Fuck that! Imagine the emotional torture he would put the parents of the opposing players through! Please, think of the parents!

League officials suggested that Jericho play other positions, or pitch against older players or in a different league.

Funny, did anyone ever think that maybe the other kids should try more hitting practice?

[FF]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the article insinuating that he was only banned because he didn't join one of the league administers team? At least thats how i read it.

[JPhillips]

Wouldn't this be optimal for young hitters who are getting their first experience hitting "live" pitching? Is it better to be going up against a 7-year old who's sending a biting slider over the outside corner?

In that league at least most of the OBP was walks. He through hard enough that kids just couldn't hit him. Most of the other kids, if they could even get the ball over the plate, through on an arc that the hitters got used to. A straight pitch tore that league up.

He moved late in the season and I have no idea what happened to him, but he was one of those kids that just seemed to be way ahead athletically compared to his peers.

[Lathum]

I have no problem with them moving him up against older/ better kids, but it should be his parents option.

[MikeVic]

In that league at least most of the OBP was walks. He through hard enough that kids just couldn't hit him. Most of the other kids, if they could even get the ball over the plate, through on an arc that the hitters got used to. A straight pitch tore that league up.

He moved late in the season and I have no idea what happened to him, but he was one of those kids that just seemed to be way ahead athletically compared to his peers.

Was it a young Phelps or Bolt?

[Noop]

He should have been moved up to play with older kids. I understand that the kids his age should practice harder but at that age those kids are trying to build confidence and have fun playing a game.

[Marc Vaughan]

I don't get this "it'll hurt the little darlings feelings if they lose too hard" mentality.

I've played on sides which have dominated games (occassionally) and also teams which have been pulped - my university side used to get thrash on a regular basis and indeed I remember us celebrating a 2-2 draw like we'd won a cup final because it gave us our first points of the season (we were about 8 matches into the season at that point).

I believe that losing builds character and also teaches kids important lessons about life (most notably that shit happens and you have to deal with it) - is it pleasant, nah not really no one enjoys it ... but if you hide them from losing all through childhood then they are going to be in for a heck of a shock as an adult.

[Marc Vaughan]

He should have been moved up to play with older kids. I understand that the kids his age should practice harder but at that age those kids are trying to build confidence and have fun playing a game.

I think he would probably move up naturally given time.

As far as them playing to have fun - yes thats fair enough but surely they've chosen to join a league because they want to compete? ... otherwise they'd just be playing with their mates in the street/park/whatever ...

[Noop]

I use to think let the kids suck it up but after coaching younger kids and seeing one kid dominate his age group in basketball (14 year olds) and flat out demoralized the entire league because he easily could go for 40 without even trying. It wasn't even fun and the kid himself started to feel bad because he basically killed the league.

Funny thing is when they moved him up to play with the 18 and unders he dominated but not as badly as he did the 14s.

[Noop]

I say this as a coach who regularly told his team to run up the score if they had the chance too. Made for a great championship game as the team we played brought their A+ game (after only score 9 pts the first meeting)... I see it both ways I guess.

[molson]

Really mixed feelings on this.

It's kind of fun to know a "great" player at that level. As a kid, you might be in awe of him, and if you or one of your friends actually gets a hit off of him - it's an amazing and memorable experience.

But baseball can be dangerous - kids that age have no ability to get out of the way of a pitched ball. I'm not really comforted by "He's on target all the time" when major leagues miss all the time. He could easily do some damage by plopping a kid in the eye or in the chest.

Everybody wins if they just move him up to the higher league.

It's definitely not about losing - who cares about kids losing. One year I played for the "White Sox". We decided that the WS on our hats stood for "We suck". Probably the most fun season of my life.

[Arles]

I used to umpire baseball for 1st-4th graders when I was in HS over the summer. There was one kid who got 15 Ks in 5 innings because he was just more advanced. The next game he pitched, the opposing coach told his players to simply walk up and hold the bat out even at waist high and leave it there like a pseudo bunt. In the first 2 innings, 3 guys made contact and one got on base. It rattled the pitcher so much he got real wild and then they just started taking walks. The "worse" team won 3-1 on walks/wild pitches and I thought it was one of the more interesting strategies I'd ever seen.

After the game, I talked with the coach that did it and he said something like "kids that good just can't handle adversity because they've never been in a situation to do so". IMO, this kid mowing down "similar age" kids won't do much for him in the long run. Let him pitch against 11 and 12 year olds and he will probably be a solid HS pitcher. If you keep him mowing down the rec leagues, he will fall like a house of cards once someone can actually hit him.

[sabotai]

But baseball can be dangerous - kids that age have no ability to get out of the way of a pitched ball. I'm not really comforted by "He's on target all the time" when major leagues miss all the time. He could easily do some damage by plopping a kid in the eye or in the chest.

I'm generally on the side that says kids need to learn to lose (which they do), but that was the part of the article that made me roll my eyes. EVERY pitcher is on target "all the time" until they hit someone with a pitch. Just because he's never hit anyone doesn't mean one isn't going to get away from him and smack an 8 year old in the face.

The way I read the article, the league is a co-ed beginners league, and this kid is obviously not a beginner. Why did his parents put him in a league that he is obviously too good to play in?

On one hand, you do have the pussification of America in which kids aren't allowed to lose, but on the other, it seems, you have parents who would rather see their kid win against inferior competition rather than challenge himself against better competition.

[illinifan999]

I once saw a kid get hit by a pitch on the ankle and break it while I was on-deck. This kid sounds a lot like the kid not being allowed to play except it was known throughout the league that he was wild, which made it pretty intense being in the batter's box.

[Doug5984]

I used to umpire baseball for 1st-4th graders when I was in HS over the summer. There was one kid who got 15 Ks in 5 innings because he was just more advanced. The next game he pitched, the opposing coach told his players to simply walk up and hold the bat out even at waist high and leave it there like a pseudo bunt. In the first 2 innings, 3 guys made contact and one got on base. It rattled the pitcher so much he got real wild and then they just started taking walks. The "worse" team won 3-1 on walks/wild pitches and I thought it was one of the more interesting strategies I'd ever seen.

After the game, I talked with the coach that did it and he said something like "kids that good just can't handle adversity because they've never been in a situation to do so". IMO, this kid mowing down "similar age" kids won't do much for him in the long run. Let him pitch against 11 and 12 year olds and he will probably be a solid HS pitcher. If you keep him mowing down the rec leagues, he will fall like a house of cards once someone can actually hit him.

That is really cool, and really makes perfect sense.

I remember reading a great ESPN page 2 article about a summer camp, and all the campers running all summer- big race at the end of the summer- and the "all athlete" kid lost the race because he didn't know how to push himself to win once he was behind, he had always been first in everything.
Anyone know what I'm talking about, or better yet- have a link to that great article? (It was posted here a while back)

[SFL Cat]

Let him play...that way the other kids can say, "I knew him when...."

[watravaler]

Only one pitcher frightened me in the 16 years or so I played competitive ball...U12...could throw 65+, would be considered wild by most standards, sent two kids to the hospital from our team...two broken jaws...and a third was on the ground for ten minutes after taking a pitch to the helmet. The ump did the right thing and tossed the pitcher...well, at least I thought it was the right thing at the time.

You've got to let the kid pitch, but baseball is a bit different. Anyway...40mph isn't THAT special for a 9yr old, it's good, no doubt, but come on now...

[Sgran]

Let him play...that way the other kids can say, "I knew him when...."

My cousin (and his parents, of course) still brag about how Greg hit a triple off Mark Prior.

I always enjoyed facing pitchers that were throwing unimaginable heat. I saw it as a challenge and my adrenaline rushed through the roof. I miss that feeling, which has simply become replaced with stress. I agree that the parents should move the kid up a league, but there's no way I would let my team forfeit the game if I was facing the little Nolan Ryan. If they're well coached, then they'll see the game as a challenge and know that they shouldn't get down if things don't go their way. The best coaches I had reminded us that sports was all about how you behaved in the face of adversity. It's the coach's job to stay positive and not let the players get down on themselves or their teammates.

[dervack]

Maybe I missed it, but is no one else bothered by the fact she called the police? What are they going to do, arrest the league for not letting a kid pitch? What's next, the police are going to arrest Lovie Smith for letting Rex Grossman hold a football on the sidelines?

[miami_fan]

So it is okay to move the kid up and expose him to possibly being hit by a line drive back up the middle that is hit by kids older than him? Or will they request that accommodations be made because he is not as good as the older kids?

[tyketime]

On one hand, you do have the pussification of America in which kids aren't allowed to lose, but on the other, it seems, you have parents who would rather see their kid win against inferior competition rather than challenge himself against better competition.

I think the way the League is going about trying to resolve it is utterly ridiculous and entirely wrong. However... I am willing to go out on a limb and say I agree with sabotai that the emphasis on winning at such a young age is absurd. IF (and I certainly don't know for sure) this is a beginner's league, then I think it would be appropriate to move him up. For those of you that say the batters should face stronger pitching to get better, wouldn't the converse also be true? If he is such a dominant pitcher, why would he (and by extension his parents) want to stay in the beginner league? It seems to me he has mastered the skill of throwing the ball down the middle of the plate. But why not challenge him as well? What is the motivation to keep him in the beginner's league? MVP and another trophy on the shelf?

It's a more difficult balance between an instructional league and maintaining some semblance of competition than it might first appear.

[cartman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the article insinuating that he was only banned because he didn't join one of the league administers team? At least thats how i read it.

That's the way I read it as well. It wasn't that he's too good to pitch, it seemed he was too good to pitch for anyone other than one of the league administrator's teams.

[Marc Vaughan]

Maybe I missed it, but is no one else bothered by the fact she called the police? What are they going to do, arrest the league for not letting a kid pitch? What's next, the police are going to arrest Lovie Smith for letting Rex Grossman hold a football on the sidelines?

I was somewhat amused by that myself - I'm presuming they turned around and said "yeah and your point for calling us is? ..." ;)

[Celeval]

You've got to let the kid pitch, but baseball is a bit different. Anyway...40mph isn't THAT special for a 9yr old, it's good, no doubt, but come on now...

It's probably also from ~30' away rather than 60'6"... 40mph probably translates into at least 70mph in the pros.

[miami_fan]

I think the way the League is going about trying to resolve it is utterly ridiculous and entirely wrong. However... I am willing to go out on a limb and say I agree with sabotai that the emphasis on winning at such a young age is absurd. IF (and I certainly don't know for sure) this is a beginner's league, then I think it would be appropriate to move him up. For those of you that say the batters should face stronger pitching to get better, wouldn't the converse also be true? If he is such a dominant pitcher, why would he (and by extension his parents) want to stay in the beginner league? It seems to me he has mastered the skill of throwing the ball down the middle of the plate. But why not challenge him as well? What is the motivation to keep him in the beginner's league? MVP and another trophy on the shelf?

It's a more difficult balance between an instructional league and maintaining some semblance of competition than it might first appear.

This basically boils down to an argument over semantics and is probably the reason I disagree with the league. The league does not want him to face stronger competition or to challenge him to develop his skills. The league wants to get rid of him because he is too throws too fast. They don't want to challenge the kids he is playing against. To me, this has more to do with the kid alone. If it were just about this one kid, why disband the rest of the team?

On a side note, parents help me out on this one since neither of my sons are at that sports playing level yet. What is the difference between a "high powered" league and a "developmental" league? Aren't all the leagues "developmental" at that age level?

[molson]

So it is okay to move the kid up and expose him to possibly being hit by a line drive back up the middle that is hit by kids older than him? Or will they request that accommodations be made because he is not as good as the older kids?

Do you think he's at some sort of bizarre twilight zone skill level - dominates 9 year-olds but overmatching by 11 year-olds?

[miami_fan]

Do you think he's at some sort of bizarre twilight zone skill level - dominates 9 year-olds but overmatching by 11 year-olds?

I have no idea what level he is at. But the basic rule of the league is age based, not skill level based. The league is for kids 8-10 years old. If they want the league to be based on skill level, then change the rules and base it on skill level.

[tyketime]

On a side note, parents help me out on this one since neither of my sons are at that sports playing level yet. What is the difference between a "high powered" league and a "developmental" league? Aren't all the leagues "developmental" at that age level?

In our area we have two types of leagues. The first is the regular in-town rec leagues which typically start out as developmental and get more competitive as the kids get older. For the better players, most sports around here also have "travel" teams. There are tryouts and the teams literally travel to play other teams in the state/region.

I never played baseball, but in particular, I think there are also rec leagues (considered more developmental), and then Babe Ruth (or equivalent) leagues that are typically more competitive.

[Maple Leafs]

Officials for the three-year-old league...
Oh yeah, real tough guy, pitching against kids one-third his age. I'm sure he feel like a real superstar striking out a bunch of toddlers.

[Dutch]

What is this kid accomplishing for his team? Doing all the "work" while the other kids pick daisy's? If the league plays 5 or 6 innings, a pitcher should be limited to 3 innings of work.

Of course, that should be a rule for "next season". The teams shouldn't forfeit games because this kid is dominating, that's not teaching kids about baseball or sport. Receiving a good ass-whuppin' in sports has it's value, even if it's not readily apparent what value that is.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Oh yeah, real tough guy, pitching against kids one-third his age. I'm sure he feel like a real superstar striking out a bunch of toddlers.

Do you have any idea how small a toddler's strike zone is?

[Maple Leafs]

Do you have any idea how small a toddler's strike zone is?
My favorite baseball team employs David Eckstien.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oh yeah, real tough guy, pitching against kids one-third his age. I'm sure he feel like a real superstar striking out a bunch of toddlers.

Well done sir, well done.

[miami_fan]

What is this kid accomplishing for his team? Doing all the "work" while the other kids pick daisy's? If the league plays 5 or 6 innings, a pitcher should be limited to 3 innings of work.

Of course, that should be a rule for "next season". The teams shouldn't forfeit games because this kid is dominating, that's not teaching kids about baseball or sport. Receiving a good ass-whuppin' in sports has it's value, even if it's not readily apparent what value that is.

I thought the pitchers were on a pitch count in Little League?

[molson]

I have no idea what level he is at. But the basic rule of the league is age based, not skill level based. The league is for kids 8-10 years old. If they want the league to be based on skill level, then change the rules and base it on skill level.

I understand. I just think it's funny that you think that a kid who absolutely dominates 9 year olds will need "special rules" to compete with 11-year olds.

[stevew]

There's gotta be a happy medium between not pitching at all, and pitching all the time. At this age it's all about development. If the guy strikes out the side every inning, his fielders will get no work whatsoever.

[miami_fan]

I understand. I just think it's funny that you think that a kid who absolutely dominates 9 year olds will need "special rules" to compete with 11-year olds.

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.

[chesapeake]

Based on this single article, it appears to me that both sides are being stupid. The league could certainly come up with a better option than disbanding the team.

On the other side, as a parent, if my daughter were head-and-shoulders above the competition in a beginners/developmental league such as this one is described to be, I would certainly make the effort to find her some better competition. Frankly, when the competition stinks, you often learn bad habits that can be very hard to unlearn later. The kid would be better off competing against better players.

[Passacaglia]

Based on this single article, it appears to me that both sides are being stupid. The league could certainly come up with a better option than disbanding the team.

On the other side, as a parent, if my daughter were head-and-shoulders above the competition in a beginners/developmental league such as this one is described to be, I would certainly make the effort to find her some better competition. Frankly, when the competition stinks, you often learn bad habits that can be very hard to unlearn later. The kid would be better off competing against better players.

You're forgetting the third stupid side -- the coach who, when told the kid couldn't play, decided to play him anyway.

[molson]

"Scott denies threatening any one, but said she did call the police."

The villain in this story to me is clear. This insane mother is the only reason this is national news. She probably threatened to kill someone at the AP.

She called the police?? "They won't let my son play baseball!!!"

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

I can't imagine this is an uncommon problem at all. It's really not that difficult to solve. Have tryouts and league tiers. Assign players to the league tier most appropriate for their skill level.

Otherwise, I think I've now fallen on the side that this is a private league, they can do whatever the hell they want. If people pay $50 to get in, the majority of parents don't want this kid playing, then he should play somewhere else.

[RendeR]

He should have been moved up to play with older kids. I understand that the kids his age should practice harder but at that age those kids are trying to build confidence and have fun playing a game.

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)

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.



This is where we start down the slope of fucking everything up "oh we have to protect the less able" "fine move the kid up" "Now he's getin crushed and can't compete" "Put in special rules for him"

Fuck that, the kid is 9, let him play with his peers, developmental league or not, this is what they NEED to develop, someone with real ability to face game in and game out.

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


this entire scenario is moronic.

[Logan]

Was watching Mike and Mike this morning and they brought up a pretty good point in response to the "move him up if he's that good" argument...

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?

[molson]

.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :D ).
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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://deadspin.com/5339976/the-ballad-of-jericho-scott). 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]

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