Little League Coaches Intentionally Walk Hitter

[SmartassBoiler 0]

http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_4154850

 

What do you guys think of this?

[wiffleball 4,660]

Granted, I don't know a lot about baseball, but here's the setup:

 

The undefeated Yanks were in the field, up by one run in the bottom of the last inning. With the tying run on third, two outs in the books, and the Red Sox' best hitter...

 

 

There's nothing to say that the best hitter couldn't have had a hit, gotten to first (and 3rd not forced to run) and the cancer kid STILL would have been the last (losing) at bat, right? What's the whup?

[SmartassBoiler 0]

Granted, I don't know a lot about baseball, but here's the setup:

 

The undefeated Yanks were in the field, up by one run in the bottom of the last inning. With the tying run on third, two outs in the books, and the Red Sox' best hitter...

There's nothing to say that the best hitter couldn't have had a hit, gotten to first (and 3rd not forced to run) and the cancer kid STILL would have been the last (losing) at bat, right? What's the whup?

 

Strategy is strategy, and it's completely subjective as to when it's morally right to use it and when it's not. I think the heart of the matter is the coach is a lying sack of crap:

 

Farr says he and Farley had no clue Romney Oaks had battled cancer, a remarkable assertion, considering Farr had coached Romney two years earlier in a basketball league.

 

If he wants to use that strategy, then he'll use it, win the game, and have to deal with the obvious negative backlash that will happen. If he wants to win that bad, fine. He should at least man up and admit to knowing exactly what he did, though.

[Cdub100 3,420]

Most coaches put their best hitter 3rd or 4th. If the kid with cancer sucked so much why was he batting 4th or 5th in the championship game?

[SmartassBoiler 0]

Most coaches put their best hitter 3rd or 4th. If the kid with cancer sucked so much why was he batting 4th or 5th in the championship game?

 

I wondered that too, but probably because the coach didn't want to put him down at the end of the lineup and either hurt the kid's feelings, hear it from the parents, or both.

[jerryskids 5,295]

Good link, fascinating situation. I think you throw the cancer part out, to me it is a non-issue. The question is, in that situation, do you walk the best hitter to get to a bad hitter? Personally I would not at that level, but the rules allow it, so you can't blame them.

 

My son loves sports but is not that athletically gifted. He doesn't have cancer but he could be the kid they chose to pitch to. Would I be mad as a parent? No. I would use it as a learning experience for my son. I would hope to use it to motivate him to improve.

[wiffleball 4,660]

Strategy is strategy, and it's completely subjective as to when it's morally right to use it and when it's not. I think the heart of the matter is the coach is a lying sack of crap:

 

 

I don't thihnk you really answered the question. Couldn't the coach have NOT pitched around the good kid and the cancer kid STILL be in the same heart-breaking postition regardless? The way it's described, there's only one guy on base - third.

 

Pitch to stud: He runs to first. Third stays.

Pitch to cancer: He strikes out. - Game over.

 

THEN: The coach would have been criticized for not WALKING the cancer kid and letting the NEXT kid win or lose the game. - And if that 3rd kid actually hit the winning run - he'd be focked over by the parents and kids of HIS team for intentionally losing the game.

 

- either way in this scenario, the coach if F'ed - agreed??

[parrot 789]

Cancer survivor or not, issuing intentional walks at that age level is pretty chickensh!t.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

Sounds like a good baseball move to me. If this was a meaningless game or one team was way out of reach of the other, I could see why someone would get mad.

[Strike 4,049]

While I feel for the brain cancer survivor kid, he puts everyone else in an awkward position just by playing. And I do understand his wanting to be "normal". But he chose to participate in a competitive sport and, in that sport, it's the other team's job to exploit their strengths and their opponent's weakness. I don't even care if the other coach knew he was a cancer survivor - he should give the kid preferential treatment at the cost of his own players? Even the president of the league, who's own son had a malignant brain tumor, didn't have a problem with the strategy:

 

 

 League president Craig Parry, a neighbor of all the coaches involved, who attended the game, has a unique perspective on the scenario not because of his administrative position, but because his own son developed a malignant brain tumor as a young kid, caroming through a similarly heart-wrenching life challenge.
  "It's a difficult call," he says. "It's hard because kids are going to have their feelings hurt. But the Yankees coaches didn't do anything wrong. These are all good people. But they wanted to win. They did the best they could in an imperfect situation."

[parrot 789]

I don't even care if the other coach knew he was a cancer survivor - he should give the kid preferential treatment at the cost of his own players?

Preferential treatment? It was the first intentional walk they had issued all year, so that's hardly preferential treatment.

[SmartassBoiler 0]

While I feel for the brain cancer survivor kid, he puts everyone else in an awkward position just by playing. And I do understand his wanting to be "normal". But he chose to participate in a competitive sport and, in that sport, it's the other team's job to exploit their strengths and their opponent's weakness. I don't even care if the other coach knew he was a cancer survivor - he should give the kid preferential treatment at the cost of his own players? Even the president of the league, who's own son had a malignant brain tumor, didn't have a problem with the strategy:

 League president Craig Parry, a neighbor of all the coaches involved, who attended the game, has a unique perspective on the scenario not because of his administrative position, but because his own son developed a malignant brain tumor as a young kid, caroming through a similarly heart-wrenching life challenge.
  "It's a difficult call," he says. "It's hard because kids are going to have their feelings hurt. But the Yankees coaches didn't do anything wrong. These are all good people. But they wanted to win. They did the best they could in an imperfect situation."

 

Take a look at my second post in this thread. I don't personally have a big problem with the strategy. He's coaching a team to win games along with making it fun for the kids. However, with the championship game on the line, I don't really fault him for making a decision that gave his team the best chance to win.

 

What I have a problem with is the fact one of the coaches seemingly lied about knowing who exactly was up next, and then claiming his strategy would be different if he had known.

[Strike 4,049]

Preferential treatment? It was the first intentional walk they had issued all year, so that's hardly preferential treatment.

 

it was also their first championship game of the season if I'm not mistaken.

[wiffleball 4,660]

I pose the question AGAIN....

[jerryskids 5,295]

What I have a problem with is the fact one of the coaches seemingly lied about knowing who exactly was up next, and then claiming his strategy would be different if he had known.

Yeah, that was whack. He should have said, "whether or not he was a cancer survivor is irrelevant. He was not swinging well, and the hitter before him had already hit a homerun."

 

As I read this it sounds like I'm maybe sarcastic, but I don't mean it that way.

[Strike 4,049]

Take a look at my second post in this thread. I don't personally have a big problem with the strategy. He's coaching a team to win games along with making it fun for the kids. However, with the championship game on the line, I don't really fault him for making a decision that gave his team the best chance to win.

 

What I have a problem with is the fact one of the coaches seemingly lied about knowing who exactly was up next, and then claiming his strategy would be different if he had known.

 

I'd have a little more of a problem if I knew for sure the coach knew. But, according to the coach, the kid was completely normal in the basketball league he coached him in. We don't know if the kid is in worse shape than he was a couple of years ago or not. And let's not forget that most kids are gonna look like crap at 7 years old anyways. I guess I just hate it when people start jumping all over a guy when

 

1) He hasn't done anything wrong.

2) Even if he knew the worst he can be accused of is questionable judgement.

[Dixie Chicken 0]

The cancer kid's coach could have made it a non-issue by using a pinch hitter. The kid with cancer at some point in time is going to have to realize that his disease is going to limit what he can and can't do. As soon as he saw the good hitter getting intentionally walked, he should have put someone else on the plate to bat.

[Voltaire 4,573]

Did the strategy work? OK then, good move.

[parrot 789]

I pose the question AGAIN....

Possible, but unlikely. If I'm coaching third with two outs and knowing who the on-deck hitter is, I'm sending the runner on contact, so either there's going to be an out or a score.

 

Regardless, it's one thing for this to happen in the normal course of a game, it's another for a coach to make it happen. I think the coaches lost sight of what their priorities should be at that level.

[Strike 4,049]

Possible, but unlikely. If I'm coaching third with two outs and knowing who the on-deck hitter is, I'm sending the runner on contact, so either there's going to be an out or a score.

 

Regardless, it's one thing for this to happen in the normal course of a game, it's another for a coach to make it happen. I think the coaches lost sight of what their priorities should be at that level.

 

You're in favor of those little leagues where they don't keep score so as not to hurt kids' feelings, aren't you?

[wiffleball 4,660]

Granted, it's an untenable situation. I think however, that I have found the only possible course of action that solves everyone's problem: They walk the stud hitter and BEAN the cancer kid. - Thus saving him the disgrace of striking out and the embarassment of being intentionally walked.

[SmartassBoiler 0]

I'd have a little more of a problem if I knew for sure the coach knew. But, according to the coach, the kid was completely normal in the basketball league he coached him in. We don't know if the kid is in worse shape than he was a couple of years ago or not. And let's not forget that most kids are gonna look like crap at 7 years old anyways. I guess I just hate it when people start jumping all over a guy when

 

1) He hasn't done anything wrong.

2) Even if he knew the worst he can be accused of is questionable judgement.

 

Yeah, that's why I put a condition on the coach by saying "seemingly". If you're in the coach's shoes, I think the way he answered the question is probably the most PC way to handle the situation if he actually did know. It ruffles the least amount of feathers, although I personally think if you're going to do something like this, be honest about it afterwards.

 

I thought the situation would warrant some interesting discussion...I didn't post it to start a hate fest for the opposing coach.

[Recidivist 1]

You're in favor of those little leagues where they don't keep score so as not to hurt kids' feelings, aren't you?

 

lowering the bar

 

sink or swim corky

[parrot 789]

You're in favor of those little leagues where they don't keep score so as not to hurt kids' feelings, aren't you?

To a certain point, yes.

 

They're focking ten and under for Christ's sake. I don't have a problem with keeping score, but moves that purposely single out the smallest and the weakest tend to piss me off. Let them play the game straight up and let the chips fall where they may.

 

I'm also an administrator and a coach at just this level so I actually know something about this stuff. At this level the leagues are intended to be mostly developmental and to try and cultivate kid's interest in the game. Some emphasis on winning and losing is okay as long it is kept in perspective. In this case, I don't believe it was. Almost without fail it's the adults that put a lot more emphasis on winning and losing than the kids.

[Strike 4,049]

Yeah, that's why I put a condition on the coach by saying "seemingly". If you're in the coach's shoes, I think the way he answered the question is probably the most PC way to handle the situation if he actually did know. It ruffles the least amount of feathers, although I personally think if you're going to do something like this, be honest about it afterwards.

 

I thought the situation would warrant some interesting discussion...I didn't post it to start a hate fest for the opposing coach.

 

Oh I know. It's a difficult situation, and hard to take a stance on either side of the issue. I just can't fault a coach for doing what's best for his team. I think he would be irresponsible if he didn't do what was best for his own players. That's where his loyalty should lie.

[torridjoe 0]

While I feel for the brain cancer survivor kid, he puts everyone else in an awkward position just by playing. And I do understand his wanting to be "normal". But he chose to participate in a competitive sport and, in that sport, it's the other team's job to exploit their strengths and their opponent's weakness. I don't even care if the other coach knew he was a cancer survivor - he should give the kid preferential treatment at the cost of his own players? Even the president of the league, who's own son had a malignant brain tumor, didn't have a problem with the strategy:

 League president Craig Parry, a neighbor of all the coaches involved, who attended the game, has a unique perspective on the scenario not because of his administrative position, but because his own son developed a malignant brain tumor as a young kid, caroming through a similarly heart-wrenching life challenge.
  "It's a difficult call," he says. "It's hard because kids are going to have their feelings hurt. But the Yankees coaches didn't do anything wrong. These are all good people. But they wanted to win. They did the best they could in an imperfect situation."

 

He's putting people in an awkward position by playing a game he's eligible to play, in a game for children?

[Strike 4,049]

To a certain point, yes.

 

They're focking ten and under for Christ's sake. I don't have a problem with keeping score, but moves that purposely single out the smallest and the weakest tend to piss me off. Let them play the game straight up and let the chips fall where they may.

 

I'm also an administrator and a coach at just this level so I actually know something about this stuff. At this level the leagues are intended to be mostly developmental and to try and cultivate kid's interest in the game. Some emphasis on winning and losing is okay as long it is kept in perspective. In this case, I don't believe it was. Almost without fail it's the adults that put a lot more emphasis on winning and losing than the kids.

 

Maybe the league shouldn't have suspended their own competitive rules for the championship game if they didn't wanted to keep the focus on things other than winning/losing.

 

And what's your take on the fact that president of the league, who went through something similar with his own kid, doesn't find fault with the coaches decision? He's a lot closer to this situation than we are and has the personal experience to make a much better informed judgement than we ever will.

 

Lastly, at what age do we start teaching our children that there are ups and downs in life, and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose?

 

He's putting people in an awkward position by playing a game he's eligible to play, in a game for children?

 

Clearly he did. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

[wiffleball 4,660]

Possible, but unlikely. If I'm coaching third with two outs and knowing who the on-deck hitter is, I'm sending the runner on contact, so either there's going to be an out or a score.

 

 

Thanks for answering. I mean, I guess I can pretty easily see where there's contact, 3rd runs, pitcher grabs the ball and 3rd scampers his axx back to 3rd.

 

Now, Cancer-Boy is still in the same damn position. Whattya do? Walk him? - nah, that'd make him feel pitied. Throw to him? - Nah, he might cry if he fails.

 

...leaving only the BEAN ball as an option...

[torridjoe 0]

Maybe the league shouldn't have suspended their own competitive rules for the championship game if they didn't wanted to keep the focus on things other than winning/losing.

 

And what's your take on the fact that president of the league, who went through something similar with his own kid, doesn't find fault with the coaches decision? He's a lot closer to this situation than we are and has the personal experience to make a much better informed judgement than we ever will.

 

Lastly, at what age do we start teaching our children that there are ups and downs in life, and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose?

Clearly he did. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

 

His being a cancer survivor didn't PUT anyone in an awkward situation, especially if you're correct that the opposing coach didn't even know. Any awkwardness is caused by the internal conflict of others between playing to win and simply letting children play sports in an organized fashion--not the kid.

[Strike 4,049]

Thanks for answering. I mean, I guess I can pretty easily see where there's contact, 3rd runs, pitcher grabs the ball and 3rd scampers his axx back to 3rd.

 

Now, Cancer-Boy is still in the same damn position. Whattya do? Walk him? - nah, that'd make him feel pitied. Throw to him? - Nah, he might cry if he fails.

 

...leaving only the BEAN ball as an option...

 

let me guess. You aim for the head too?

 

His being a cancer survivor didn't PUT anyone in an awkward situation, especially if you're correct that the opposing coach didn't even know. Any awkwardness is caused by the internal conflict of others between playing to win and simply letting children play sports in an organized fashion--not the kid.

 

Yeah, god forbid you play a game and actually try to win, within the rules

[torridjoe 0]

let me guess. You aim for the head too?

Yeah, god forbid you play a game and actually try to win, within the rules

 

A non-answer. Whatever the coach chooses, the conflict is his, and not brought on by the kid who has every right to participate. Saying it's the kid's fault that the coach felt he had to decide is bogus.

[parrot 789]

Maybe the league shouldn't have suspended their own competitive rules for the championship game if they didn't wanted to keep the focus on things other than winning/losing.

Maybe so, but that doesn't absolve the coach of his own lapse in judgment. That's all I'm saying it was by the way.

 

And what's your take on the fact that president of the league, who went through something similar with his own kid, doesn't find fault with the coaches decision? He's a lot closer to this situation than we are and has the personal experience to make a much better informed judgement than we ever will.

Well partially his position demands that he be a little bit of a politician. Beyond that, I can't speak for what he thinks.

Lastly, at what age do we start teaching our children that there are ups and downs in life, and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose?

I've already said that I think keeping score is appropriate at that level, but that doesn't make every tactic appropriate, IMO.

[Strike 4,049]

A non-answer. Whatever the coach chooses, the conflict is his, and not brought on by the kid who has every right to participate. Saying it's the kid's fault that the coach felt he had to decide is bogus.

 

Who said it was anyone's fault? the question was whether the coach made a bad decision. I say no. You're free to disagree with me - that would be nothing new. But if the kid chooses to participate because he wants to be "normal" then he should expect to be treated like a normal kid, good or bad. The coach played within the rules of the game and did what he thought gave his team the best chance to win. Therefore, IMO the coach didn't act improper.

[Snoopy1 0]

Most coaches put their best hitter 3rd or 4th. If the kid with cancer sucked so much why was he batting 4th or 5th in the championship game?

 

 

I wonder if there was a mininum number of innings played rule, and he had replaced another kid. Hiding him in center, cause the best hitter played right?

 

The story is sad in an at-the-moment level, but I hope someone tells that kid he's already a champion just for getting up every day.

 

ETA: hadn't finished the article.

 

The collision between baseball and the flawed human condition initially left Romney Oaks defeated and distraught. The powerfully positive news is that the young boy subsequently told Gulbransen that he would have none of such discouragement over the long haul.

"Romney made a determination," Gulbransen says. "He said he wouldn't quit. He said he wouldn't be the kid who strikes out to end the game next time. He wants to be the kid who gets intentionally walked."

 

Good for him.

[torridjoe 0]

Who said it was anyone's fault? the question was whether the coach made a bad decision. I say no. You're free to disagree with me - that would be nothing new. But if the kid chooses to participate because he wants to be "normal" then he should expect to be treated like a normal kid, good or bad. The coach played within the rules of the game and did what he thought gave his team the best chance to win. Therefore, IMO the coach didn't act improper.

 

YOU said it was someone's fault. You said the kid put everyone in an awkward position by playing. Which is a load.

 

I 100% guarantee you that kid wants more than anything else to be treated like a "normal" kid.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

YOU said it was someone's fault. You said the kid put everyone in an awkward position by playing. Which is a load.

 

I 100% guarantee you that kid wants more than anything else to be treated like a "normal" kid.

 

 

If that little kid were you, I would have advised the pitcher to throw at your nappy old head.

[Snoopy1 0]

If that little kid were you, I would have advised the pitcher to throw at your nappy old head.

 

 

How could he miss that 'fro?

[torridjoe 0]

How could he miss that 'fro?

 

The fro would save me--and it'd get stuck in there, making it a HBP and we'd win the game!

[Strike 4,049]

YOU said it was someone's fault. You said the kid put everyone in an awkward position by playing. Which is a load.

 

I 100% guarantee you that kid wants more than anything else to be treated like a "normal" kid.

 

I'm sorry but the kid did put everyone in an awkward position. How is that saying it's his fault? For someone who bitches when people change even one word of a sentence he wrote, even if it doesn't affect the context of the comment, you should be the last person suggesting I ever used the word fault or suggested anyone was at fault, when I clearly didn't. Believe it or not, bad situations can occur where noone is at fault.

 

Why are you always so argumentative? This was a civil discussion until you arrived and started bastardizing my statements. Of course, that happens in most threads you participate in so it's not a surprise.

[mobb_deep 919]

Why does it matter that the kid had cancer. Wow the kid was a victum of circumstance and his parents bad genetics. He fought it and lived so now he deserves some sort of special attention givin to him and his remarkable life from here till eternity. Sorry but I don't buy it.