What would you do if you were the coach in this situation?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/rick_reilly/08/07/reilly0814/index.html?cnn=yes">http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/w ... ml?cnn=yes</a><!-- m -->
I know they are a bunch of 9 and 10 year olds, but I still think the coach made the right decision. This is sports.....stuff like this happens all the time. Might as well teach them at a young age the strategies of winning ball games. This was the championship game, and the coach did what he had to do to let his team win. If the parents can't suck it up, then have your kids take piano lessons.
I know this probably sounded harsh but this is coming from a competitive person who plays for fun, but also plays to win.
I see nothing wrong with what the coach did.
Why should the entire premise and structure of a game of baseball be altered to accomadate the particular condition of one of the players?
If the cancer survivor was a kid who was a poor hitter because he might be, say, battling a weight problem, would that change this story?
What would have happened if the cancer-survivor would've laced one down the right field line and won the game for his team? It would have been the heartwarming story of the year for all the right reasons -- a triumph over adversity at the the most common and relatable human level. Don't we have to let life play out, so the inspiring stories can get the opportunity to occur?
Isn't this what we want to teach our children? That no matter how the odds might be stacked against us, we must face obstacles head on and do our best to triumph over them? ALL of us are going to find ourselves at a disadvantage at one point or another, and the World is not going to stop on that account. What would it say to all the other kids who have to deal with the cards they're dealt if one specific case gets "special consideration", while another might just be treated as a "fact of life"?
Treating this cancer-surviving player as a special case, and altering the way game is played in deference to him is doing him a disservice in the long run.
I wouldn't do it and not because of what it did to the losing team. I think it puts a pall on the victory - "Hey, Yanks! You won by striking out a cancer survivor on growth hormones and with a shunt in his brain! And - as just an added bonus - sicky cancer kid cried himself to sleep that night. Good job! Make sure you put that in your scrapbook because, you know, you're going to want to look back on this day with pride!"
But that's just me.
I just heard about this story on the Jim Rome show today...and as much as I understand the argument for the "teach them how to win early" or "what if the kid would have smacked one down the line for the win" this is 9 and 10 year old baseball....why walk a kid in 9/10 year old baseball?
Most little leagues don't even allow intentional walks for this very reason because sports at this age is NOT about wins or losses, it's about letting every kid get an equal shot at the dish and an equal shot in the field and teaching them about fair play, teamwork and SPORTSMANSHIP. Walking the best hitter to get to Timmy, the growth hormone-dependant cancer survior, to win the $.50 cent league trophy is not sportsmanship. That, my friends, is win at all costs mentality. Something that doesn't need to be instilled in these kids' minds at this young an age.
I can justify this happening beginning around the Highschool level but anything younger than that is, in my judgement, wrong. The one exception being the Little League World Series which I believe has a 12 year-old age cut off.
Sam Wrote:I wouldn't do it and not because of what it did to the losing team. I think it puts a pall on the victory - "Hey, Yanks! You won by striking out a cancer survivor on growth hormones and with a shunt in his brain! And - as just an added bonus - sicky cancer kid cried himself to sleep that night. Good job! Make sure you put that in your scrapbook because, you know, you're going to want to look back on this day with pride!"
But that's just me.
I'm sure the are plenty of other "normal" kids who also would have cried themselves to sleep that night after being unable to come thorugh for their team with the game on the line.
So because the kid was a cancer-survivor, there should be a "pall on the victory", but not if they had walked the slugger to get to the genetically fat kid with the slow swing? This puts a damper on the winning team's accomplishment, but it wouldn't had it been was some other weak & skinny kid who is playing catch-up because of a very low birthweight from his mother smoking during pregnancy?
Or would these other circumstances not be "sad" enough to throw a wet blanket on the outcome?
robert goulet Wrote:why walk a kid in 9/10 year old baseball?
Because it's
baseball. That's an essential part of the execution of the game. The object of the whole exercise is to win, and the strategies that lead to that objective are just as important as the rules and the fundamentals.
Sportsmanship and
teamwork are important, necessary concepts, but they are concepts that must be instilled
during the process of competing towards the goal of the exercise, which, again, is
winning.
Sportsmanship is learned though accepting and dealing with the results of fair competition, whether they be triumphant or heartbreaking. Walking a good hitter to get to a poor one, no matter what the specifics are, is fair competition. If those principles are beyond the grasp of these children, then they're too young to be playing
baseball. Have them play Red Rover or Kickball instead.
My question is why on earth the coach of the losing team chose to put the cancer-survivor after his best hitter in the lineup? He was asking for this situation to occur.
I don't think it's a 'sad' situation, HE. I think it's sickening. There's a difference.
When I played ball, we tried out for the team. Bad players got cut from the team. And were we competitive? Damn straight. But we knew what we were getting in to when we signed up.
The presence of a small sized cancer survivor makes me think that this might not be a competitive league. So, intentionally walking a stronger player so that you can strike out a weaker player in a non-competitive league is sickening no matter what the individual circumstances are - whether the kid is weaker because of cancer, weight issues or just predisposed to be a bad athelete.
Quote:Why should the entire premise and structure of a game of baseball be altered to accomadate the particular condition of one of the players?
Wait a minute, hasn't the game of baseball been altered already, in this case? From the article:
Quote:This is a league where everybody gets to bat, there's a four-runs-per-inning max, and no stealing until the ball crosses the plate.
We're not talking about a penant game in the Major Leagues here. These are kids in a 'participation league.' If the coach needs to prove something by winning this game with his strategy, maybe he should stop coaching kids in a participation league and look for a competitive league?
Sam Wrote:The presence of a small sized cancer survivor makes me think that this might not be a competitive league. So, intentionally walking a stronger player so that you can strike out a weaker player in a non-competitive league is sickening no matter what the individual circumstances are - whether the kid is weaker because of cancer, weight issues or just predisposed to be a bad athelete........We are not talking about a penant game in the Major Leagues here. These are kids in a 'participation league.' If the coach needs to prove something by winning this game with his strategy, maybe he should stop coaching kids in a participation league and look for a competitive league?
What's this "non-competitive" stuff? Is there a winner and a loser? What alterations have been applied are to 1) give the kids the chance to develop skills as young players (everybody gets at-bats so they can learn to hit a baseball) and 2) keep it competitive to the nature of the sport (the no-stealing rule, because young catchers cannot throw anybody out if they break on the pitch), and 3) to regulate the length of games (the "four-run rule", because fielding at this age can be so poor that games could go on forever).
Sam, If it's "non-competitive"
then why are they keeping score?
Well, my daughter plays in a non-comeptitive soccer league and they keep score. The kids enjoy 'winning' but there are differences from competitive leagues, such as:
1. You sign up for the teams, you don't try out. No one is turned away.
2. The emphasis is on participation, not winning.
3. Everyone plays equal time and everyone gets the opportunity to try different positions on the team.
Is that what was happening here? I don't know. But I suspect that a league that allows a child whose health is as compromised as this kid's would fall into the non-competitive, participation field.
Now, all in all, I don't give a damn about any of this. I think it's sickening, but as I think I've already told you, I'm constantly underwhelmed by atheletes. I'm not surprised the coach did what he did, I'm pretty sure the cancer kid has accepted the event and moved on and - significantly for me anyway - the coach isn't my husband and the kid isn't my son. So. I don't give a flying f*ck through a rolling doughnut about either of them, really.
Compared to the situation in the Middle East, it's a small matter.
Sam Wrote:Well, my daughter plays in a non-comeptitive soccer league and they keep score. The kids enjoy 'winning' but there are differences from competitive leagues, such as:
1. You sign up for the teams, you don't try out. No one is turned away.
2. The emphasis is on participation, not winning.
3. Everyone plays equal time and everyone gets the opportunity to try different positions on the team.
While that league may fit the sort of experience that you want for your daughter, or what she may want for herself, I doubt that's the case in this story. Perhaps accomodations were made to let this kid play (ie, he was a member of the team before he got sick, etc) in which case I'm sure he knows that he is to be treated like any other player and assessed for his strengths and weaknesses. One of the great things about sport is that it teaches you an understand of how life works are a larger scale. To strip that awy for fear of hurting some child's feelings is a bit too touchy feely for my taste. Sure, it sucks to be in that kid's shoes, but his emotions would probaby have been the same, cancer survivor or not.
Sam Wrote:Compared to the situation in the Middle East, it's a small matter.
I don't think anyone compared the two. It's a Rick Reilly article, not
Newsweek.
-Jenna
I don't think the reason they wanted to pitch to the cancer survivor is because of who he was. It's simply the fact that the guy who was walked was there best hitter. It could have been any other kid on deck and I'm sure they still would have walked him anyway. Do teams in the majors intentionally walk Wells, Glaus and the rest of the lineup just so they can face John McDonald? No, but they will walk Glaus to get to Overbay even though he's a good hitter.
Sure it's in the rules, and a sports decision, but there's just a moral right and wrong, and this is pretty much on the wrong end of the situation. The hurt felt by the boy with Cancer will long outlive the thrill of the victory felt by the winning team, if they were thrilled with winning like this at all.
I'm sure the coach who made this decision will also get a lot of grief after this story got picked up by the mainstream media, and rightfully so.
Sam Wrote:Well, my daughter plays in a non-comeptitive soccer league and they keep score. The kids enjoy 'winning' but there are differences from competitive leagues, such as:
1. You sign up for the teams, you don't try out. No one is turned away.
2. The emphasis is on participation, not winning.
3. Everyone plays equal time and everyone gets the opportunity to try different positions on the team.
Is that what was happening here? I don't know. But I suspect that a league that allows a child whose health is as compromised as this kid's would fall into the non-competitive, participation field.
Well, it was, after all
a championship game. If winning is not the emphasis, why on earth is there a
title to be won? That's insane.
This is just the same-old hypersensitivity running abound. Organize a league, create a schedule, hold a championship game,
then try to make a monster out of a coach who tries, within the rules of the game, to lead his team in pursuit of the goal that all participants recognize as the objective of the competition.
I think
that is sickening.
Kudos to the championship coach. Well played, you arch-strategist. Casey Stengel would be proud.
Horrible Esthete, your arguments about this being part of the game and within the rules would make more of an impression on me if it this story was about one 9-year old kid who out played another 9-year old kid to win the championship, rather than about somebody's dad outwitting, outlasting, outmanaging his way to a championship by ducking a superior player to pitch to the weaker kid.
Maybe the real story should be about the team of kids that played hard all year and were rewarded with a trophy. Maybe, I don't know. Like somebody said, I don't really care that much about kids' baseball in Utah. But the moral conundrum that we are being asked to think about is about the coach and the weaker kid. And how anyone could side with the coach is beyond me.
Excuse me while I go throw up in a corner. I must be hyper-sensitive.
ct