Too Good to Pitch

[Myself]

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-t...p&type=lgns

“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.”

One of the clearest examples of "punishing the good for being good" I've ever seen. I hope his parents continue to encourage him to keep doing what he loves to do.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The more appropriate thing to do--if he is that overwhelmingly better than his age group--is to move him ahead, not ban him.

Grrrr......

[softwareNerd]

The more appropriate thing to do--if he is that overwhelmingly better than his age group--is to move him ahead, not ban him.

The article says:

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

So, it appears that he did not want to "move ahead".

[DavidOdden]

Does anyone have any actual information about the purpose of that organization? I can't find anything online that states why they exist.

[K-Mac]

The more appropriate thing to do--if he is that overwhelmingly better than his age group--is to move him ahead, not ban him.

I am not sure I agree with this. Should he not compete with others in his age group? Why move him ahead into a group where the kids will be more mature than he is? That could squash his talent and ruin his hopes for the future. I mean, we didn't start a new basketball league for Micheal Jordan because he was "too good" and making other players look like idiots, right??

[eriatarka]

I am not sure I agree with this. Should he not compete with others in his age group? Why move him ahead into a group where the kids will be more mature than he is? That could squash his talent and ruin his hopes for the future.

Because the best way to improve skills is normally to be constantly challenged and face good players, rather than effortlessly beating those who are much worse than you. Continually playing against weak opposition can be detrimental since it breeds a sense of complacency and theres no motivation to correct your mistakes since theyre unlikely to be punished. It can also be really boring for everyone involved.

Also I think the first post missed out the most telling part of the story

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.

Edited August 26, 2008 by eriatarka

[K-Mac]

Because the best way to improve skills is normally to be constantly challenged and face good players,

That's a good point. Then my next thought was, well, Jordan was still challenged even though he made it look easy. My problem would be if this boy is moved up and then is suddenly no good and loses his confidence because he's been pushed out of his league (no pun intended.) He needs to be challenged, but not squashed by older, more mature boys. I guess they'd just have to monitor how he does with the older kids??

[musenji]

I mean, we didn't start a new basketball league for Micheal Jordan because he was "too good" and making other players look like idiots, right??

That's because if they had started such a league, Michael Jordan would have had nobody to play with.

[punk]

Look at it this way -

Suppose you let him play. Then every team knows they aren't going to win so whenever they are going to play this team they just forfeit.

Well that's nice, this team ends up with a perfect record, and never plays a game.

However, since we are talking about a league for 9 year olds, I think it is about more than winning every game. This probably has something to do with playing, having a good time, being out in the Sun.

You know - fun.

So they told him he couldn't pitch so everyone could have fun.

It seems pretty reasonable to me.

[dadmonson]

That's a good point. Then my next thought was, well, Jordan was still challenged even though he made it look easy.

Michael Jordan wasn't always that good he didn't even make Varsity when he was a Sophmore in High School.

As far as the baseball situation though, I say keep the little guy in, can you imagine the confidence a kid would gain from hitting a homerun(Or the little league equivelant, I guess) against that kid? And someone probably will. Nobody is perfect all the time.

Edited August 27, 2008 by dadmonson

[K-Mac]

So they told him he couldn't pitch so everyone could have fun.

It seems pretty reasonable to me.

Yikes! You mean, everyone can have fun, but the kid in question, right? Nice.

Nobody is perfect all the time.

Great point.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

Suppose you let him play. Then every team knows they aren't going to win so whenever they are going to play this team they just forfeit.

However, since we are talking about a league for 9 year olds, I think it is about more than winning every game. This probably has something to do with playing, having a good time, being out in the Sun.

In other words, those with superior ability should not be concerned only with winning, while the same attitude should be tolerated in others. That is a double-standard.

[DragonMaci]

So they told him he couldn't pitch so everyone could have fun.

It seems pretty reasonable to me.

You think it sounds reasonable to sacrifice this kid to the majority so they can have fun? It doesn't to me. To sacrifice any individual to the majority's desires is evil, especially when you sacrifice the best.

[punk]

Yikes! You mean, everyone can have fun, but the kid in question, right? Nice.

Great point.

The alternative is that no other team is ever going to play that team.

Okay they win every one of their games by forfeit.

Kudos.

They win every game.

If their goal in the league is to win every game, they've got it.

You think it sounds reasonable to sacrifice this kid to the majority so they can have fun? It doesn't to me. To sacrifice any individual to the majority's desires is evil, especially when you sacrifice the best.

No, I think that since no other team appears to want to play that team that he isn't going to play even if he is pitcher.

I mean, if it is about a perfect record, they'll get it by forfeits.

There, they won.

Look at it this way - if a master chess player wants to play chess with me, I'm going to say "no". Why? Because I wouldnt' have a chance. If he wants to take some pieces off the board I'll play him. Is it wrong of him to not play the full game (with all the pieces) because someone else demands he do so?

Edited August 27, 2008 by punk

[softwareNerd]

Playing against someone better challenges a kid by giving the kid something to reach for. On the other hand, it typically makes no sense to have a kid routinely compete against an opponent who is so way ahead that the kid goes in knowing he's sure to lose. This is analogous to other types of goal-setting: set an ambitious goal, but one that is achievable.

In a team-sport, one can have a few kids who are way better, and still be fine, because the team evens things out. Not sure how this translates to baseball. From the reaction of the parents in this case, I assume that one kid was so good that competing against him was a goal too high for their purpose. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to play with a player who is much better.

The right decision depends on the purposes of this particular league; but, asking that kid to play against kids who are of a similar caliber seems -- prima facie -- to be a fine choice.

[DragonMaci]

Look at it this way - if a master chess player wants to play chess with me, I'm going to say "no". Why? Because I wouldnt' have a chance. If he wants to take some pieces off the board I'll play him. Is it wrong of him to not play the full game (with all the pieces) because someone else demands he do so?

That analogy is not relevant. No one is asking the kid to play with only part of his potential. Besides, I think to play at anything but your best is wrong. I think it is wrong to play at half your potential (or some other non-100% proportion) just to placate the less skilled and play them.

ADDITION: A solution that results in everyone winning has already been mentioned: trial the kid in a higher league.

Edited August 27, 2008 by DragonMaci

[K-Mac]

Goal/purpose of the league? Isn't the goal of any game to win, period? Granted, children must be taught how to play, but part of playing is learning how to win and lose gracefully. They should be taught what the winner did right and what they need to work on if they want to win in the future.

I played basketball at the YMCA when I was a kid and my dad was our coach. One year, we won all but the last game of the season. The following year we won every game. No other teams just gave up and forfeited because we were good.

Now, some of the parents and coaches of the other teams thought we were cheating and reported such because my dad taught us how to run the pick and roll, very effectively. All that means is that those parents and coaches knew nothing about basketball, and therefore, their teams sucked. They were not teaching their players the fundamentals of the game. Is that my team or my dad's fault??

Edited August 27, 2008 by K-Mac

[DragonMaci]

Now, some of the parents and coaches of the other teams thought we were cheating and reported such because my dad taught us how to run the pick and roll, very effectively. All that means is that those parents and coaches knew nothing about basketball, and therefore, their teams sucked. They were not teaching their players the fundamentals of the game. Is that my team or my dad's fault??

No, it is the fault of your opposition teams and their coaches (as I am sure you are aware). That is why I made my 1st reply to Punk.

[K-Mac]

It was a rhetorical question.

[DragonMaci]

It was a rhetorical question.

I know. I just wanted to make your implication explicit.

[punk]

That analogy is not relevant. No one is asking the kid to play with only part of his potential. Besides, I think to play at anything but your best is wrong. I think it is wrong to play at half your potential (or some other non-100% proportion) just to placate the less skilled and play them.

ADDITION: A solution that results in everyone winning has already been mentioned: trial the kid in a higher league.

Okay then here is the solution:

1. We let the kid play

2. Every other team forfeits their games with the kid's team

3. Before the season even start we give the kid's team the first place trophy

4. Everyone else has a really fun time playing to see who comes in second

Problem solved.

Well except for those other kids on the kid's team who wanted to have some fun playing the game.

...

The fact is you can't force all the other kids to play against this really good kid. If they all want to forfeit their games with him that is their own business.

Edited August 27, 2008 by punk

[Moebius]

Okay then here is the solution:

1. We let the kid play

2. Every other team forfeits their games with the kid's team

3. Before the season even start we give the kid's team the first place trophy

4. Everyone else has a really fun time playing to see who comes in second

I don't think the other team really needed to forfeit their games. What are you teaching the kids? When the competition gets rough, quit or evade. Personally I have always liked playing against better competition, even as a kid. It forces me to get better, and there were times as a kid where I would just sit there and do drills all day on my own just so the next time I could beat the other guys.

Sports is about "fun", true. It's fun when you put a lot of work into your game and see yourself improve. It's fun when you win. And finally it's REALLY fun when you finally beat someone supposedly better than you. I don't want my kids playing in a league of quitters.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

Look at it this way - if a master chess player wants to play chess with me, I'm going to say "no". Why? Because I wouldnt' have a chance. If he wants to take some pieces off the board I'll play him. Is it wrong of him to not play the full game (with all the pieces) because someone else demands he do so?

It is interesting that you mention chess. In junior chess tournaments, there is often one player who is much more skilled than the rest of the field. The essential issue is that eligibility for these events is often determined by a single objective standard: age. To use age as the standard while excluding players who are "too good" is irrational. Alternatively, one can choose skill as the standard of eligibility (chess has a rating system which allows this), in which case stronger players might legitimately be excluded from a lower category.

What one must not do is to adopt age as the standard and then decide ex post facto that a certain player is too skilled.

As a chess player, I have often played in events with strong grandmasters in which I had no realistic chance of winning. In such tournaments there are usually substantial prizes decided by certain objectively defined categories of age and skill, for which weaker players compete.

Here are two possible solutions for the league in question: create an objective limit on the skill of players who are allowed to participate (to be enforced with all new teams entering the league), or offer lots of prizes for non-1st place finishes.

What is not acceptable is to bend the standard of eligibility when confronted by superior talent. This amounts to pretending that certain teams are the best in their age category when in fact better teams have been subjectively excluded. If one wishes to play with players close to one's own level, one has to recognize that one is at a lower level, using an objective standard. Anything else is evasion.

Here is an example from chess: I played in a tournament in which the standard of eligibility was being a college student in the United States. In this event, one of the teams featured a foreign grandmaster, whose skill was such that other players had almost no chance of winning. Even so, many players entered the event; they did not spinelessly refuse to play, or demand that the top-seed be banned.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Tenzing_Shaw

[aleph_0]

Interesting story, and a lot like one that I actually saw in my home town. Our team's pitcher could throw 70-miles-per-hour. In junior high. There were three teams that would regularly play each other in the area, and they agreed to create a new rule just because of him: No pitcher can pitch more than once in any three consecutive games. Even so, we were almost undefeated until the last game of the season.

The pitcher kid was the son of illegal immigrants, though, so when the parents decided he was old enough to work in the orange groves, they forbade him from playing ball and made him work with them. I have no idea what became of him.

[DragonMaci]

EDIT: Somehow my stupid computer got the idea to send the message before I typed anything. Here is what I meant to say:

Okay then here is the solution:

1. We let the kid play

2. Every other team forfeits their games with the kid's team

3. Before the season even start we give the kid's team the first place trophy

4. Everyone else has a really fun time playing to see who comes in second

Problem solved.

Well except for those other kids on the kid's team who wanted to have some fun playing the game.

Firstly, that sarcasm is silly. Second, you are blatently ignoring a much better solution that, as I said, has already been offered.

The fact is you can't force all the other kids to play against this really good kid. If they all want to forfeit their games with him that is their own business.

No one said otherwise. Futhermore, it'd be wrong to sacrifice that kid to those other kids, especially when an option that involved no sacrifice is available.

Edited August 28, 2008 by DragonMaci