Pitcher "Too Good" For Youth Leagues - Excellence Punished A

[jbg]

It seems that excellence is routinely punished, mediocrity rewarded. Examples of this abound. In Canada, excellent English-speaking public servants languish in dead-end jobs because they don't speak French, while mediocre French, nominally bi-lingual (think Dion or Chretien) Francophones smash their way upwards. This article is an example.

Below this excerpt of the story (link), I have compared it to an early Kurt Vonnegut short story.

Baseball Team's Pitcher, 9, Ousted for Being Too Good

August 25, 2008

By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, Associated Press Writer

Excerpt:

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP)—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 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.

***********************

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?”

This reminds me of a short story called "Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut, from his book Welcome to the Monkey House (obviously, written before he went Leftist. Excerpts below, link to full story.

Harrison Bergeron

by Kurt Vonnegut (1961)

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April, for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.

It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.

On the television screen were ballerinas.

A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.

“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.

“Huh?” said George.

“That dance – it was nice,” said Hazel.

“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good – no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.

George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.

Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself she had to ask George what the latest sound had been.

"Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer,” said George.

“I’d think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds,” said Hazel, a little envious. “All the things they think up.”

*******************************************

The television program was suddenly interrupted for a news bulletin. It wasn’t clear at first as to what the bulletin was about, since the announcer, like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment. For about half a minute, and in a state of high excitement, the announcer tried to say, “Ladies and gentlemen – ”

He finally gave up, handed the bulletin to a ballerina to read.

“That’s all right –” Hazel said of the announcer, “he tried. That’s the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.”

“Ladies and gentlemen” said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred-pound men.

And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice for a woman to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody. “Excuse me – ” she said, and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive.

“Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen,” she said in a grackle squawk, “has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under–handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous.”

[/indent]

[Riverwind]

I don't see why this would be a problem if having fun was the stated objective of the baseball league. Playing a team with a pitcher who is so good that your batters have zero chance of getting on base is not that fun. That said, the kid should be given the option of playing with older kids which might be able to match his skill.

[jbg]

I don't see why this would be a problem if having fun was the stated objective of the baseball league. Playing a team with a pitcher who is so good that your batters have zero chance of getting on base is not that fun. That said, the kid should be given the option of playing with older kids which might be able to match his skill.

How is this not a "Harrison Bergeron" moment?

[Riverwind]

How is this not a "Harrison Bergeron" moment?

I understand your argument and I agree it applies in most situations but there are situations where handicapping yourself in order to have fun is the best thing to do. I am in that situation whenever I play games with my kids. A baseball league is a grey area. Some leagues are billed as competitive leagues others are billed as recreational leagues. If it was the latter then the I can understand the reaction.

[jbg]

I understand your argument and I agree it applies in most situations but there are situations where handicapping yourself in order to have fun is the best thing to do. I am in that situation whenever I play games with my kids. A baseball league is a grey area. Some leagues are billed as competitive leagues others are billed as recreational leagues. If it was the latter then the I can understand the reaction.

You make a good point which I'm going to think about rather than respond to immediately.

I will tell you my wife agrees with you, not me.

[noahbody]

A solution would be to limit the number of innings a pitcher could pitch to two or three. Game on.

[jefferiah]

I understand your argument and I agree it applies in most situations but there are situations where handicapping yourself in order to have fun is the best thing to do. I am in that situation whenever I play games with my kids.

Your kids have to go easy on you so you can have fun?

Edited August 26, 2008 by jefferiah

[Riverwind]

Your kids have to go easy on you so you can have fun?

Yea. They are great kids ;-) Edited August 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[guyser]

It seems that excellence is routinely punished, mediocrity rewarded. Examples of this abound.

This article is an example.

No it isnt an example.

I guess wrestling is all wrong?

In Canada, excellent English-speaking public servants languish in dead-end jobs because they don't speak French, while mediocre French, nominally bi-lingual (think Dion or Chretien) Francophones smash their way upwards.

Who are these "excellent English speaking public servants" ? How many do you know...apart from ...oh..none?

Fact is, the kid should not be playing in a house league. He should be in the equivalent of what we call AAA hockey here in Ontario. Also, if a kid is good or big and good, even for AAA, he is moved up in age group so that HE benefits from the challenge.

[Guest American Woman]

I admittedly don't know that much about baseball, but from what I've read, some of the parents are concerned about the speed of the ball because the players are so young. So far he's been accurate, but if he were to make a bad pitch at that speed, would it be putting the batter in danger of being badly hurt? If so, it could be that they have a legitimate concern. So if that's the case, I like the idea of his playing with older teams. Seems as if that would give him a better opportunity to improve his skills, too.

As for the 'other kids in the league can't have fun because he's too good' line of thought-- if that's the only 'problem,' I have to say I disagree with it. It could be a lot of fun for the kids to see if they're the one who can get a hit off of him. It could be a real challenge, and kids should learn that a challenge can be fun. If no one can get a hit, there's always next time -- or the next team. You win some, you lose some.

[jefferiah]

Aside from the debate over the validity of JBG's illustration, politics and business aren't exactly a baseball game just for fun. I think he is making an excellent point overall, and while we can all nitpick about the suitability of his parable, the illustration serves its purpose. This philosophy of benching the stars would not work to create the best result for a professional baseball team.

[jefferiah]

Also, if a kid is good or big and good, even for AAA, he is moved up in age group so that HE benefits from the challenge.

This is an example of rewarding success, which is what JBG seems to advocate here. The kid in the article does not see his success rewarded.

Edited August 27, 2008 by jefferiah

[guyser]

This is an example of rewarding success, which is what JBG seems to advocate here.

Not so sure about that. jbg posted this in the first line ...

It seems that excellence is routinely punished, mediocrity rewarded...

I took it to mean he thought this was a dumb idea, when in fact in routinely occurs. These are nine yr olds , not even Little League participants.

Call me when that happens at the World Series for Little Leagues.

[jefferiah]

Not so sure about that. jbg posted this in the first line ...

I took it to mean he thought this was a dumb idea, when in fact in routinely occurs. These are nine yr olds , not even Little League participants.

Call me when that happens at the World Series for Little Leagues.

I think you misunderstand what I meant. I did not say that JBG's story was an example of rewarding success, but rather I was indicating your own point about how a good pitcher or player could be moved up a bracket. That is an example of rewarding success. That doesn't seem to happen in his article. If JBG thinks that rewarding mediocrity and punishing success is stupid, I assume he also thinks rewarding success is a good idea.

Edited August 27, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

N These are nine yr olds , not even Little League participants.

Does this even matter?

Edited August 27, 2008 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

It can easily be applied to point out the flaws in affirmative action policies, or punishing those successful in business with higher and higher taxes, reducing the incentive for success.

This situation has nothing to do with affirmative action policies, which do not exclude people because they are "too good."

[jefferiah]

This situation has nothing to do with affirmative action policies, which do not exclude people because they are "too good."

No not exactly, but from the reverse side, it can promote those who aren't over those who are, in order to create an engineered false equality. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there are cases where because of affirmative action, that merit takes a back seat.

Edited August 27, 2008 by jefferiah

[jbg]

If JBG thinks that rewarding mediocrity and punishing success is stupid, I assume he also thinks rewarding success is a good idea.

You hit the nail on the head. People who are successful should not be sent home crying.

[guyser]

Does this even matter?

I think it does.

When a kid is a LL participant he has graduated to a level where the players can or will be ...much stronger, throw harder and can dominate.

For those of us who graduated to AAA we knew the game would be much tougher. We dont have hitting in hockey at age nine (IIRC) even though hitting is an essential part of the game.

[CANADIEN]

It seems that excellence is routinely punished, mediocrity rewarded. Examples of this abound. In Canada, excellent English-speaking public servants languish in dead-end jobs because they don't speak French, while mediocre French, nominally bi-lingual (think Dion or Chretien) Francophones smash their way upwards.

Fine example of basic non-sense. Chrétien (who by the way was perfecdftly bilingual, both his French and English were deliberately bad ) and Dion are politicians, not civil servants.

Edited August 29, 2008 by CANADIEN

[jbg]

Fine example of basic non-sense. Chrétien (who by the way was perfecdftly bilingual, both his French and English were deliberately bad ) and Dion are politicians, not civil servants.

I have actually heard that Chretien could speak perfect Canadian and chose not to for political reasons. The failure to speak coherent English Canadian was a senseless assault on 3/4 of Canada's people.

[CANADIEN]

I have actually heard that Chretien could speak perfect Canadian and chose not to for political reasons. The failure to speak coherent English Canadian was a senseless assault on 3/4 of Canada's people.

So now only English is a Canadian language?

The only senseless assault is the one committed by you against common sense. Stick to your usual islamophobia.

[CANADIEN]

Sending a kid packing because he is too strong is wrong. On the other hand, if he such a dominant players than other teams will forfeit the game instead of facing him, perhaps it would be better for him to play with another age group and another level, where he would face actual competition.

[jbg]

So now only English is a Canadian language?

The only senseless assault is the one committed by you against common sense. Stick to your usual islamophobia.

I'm not from Canada and I don't know much about the country. Aren't the official languages Canadian and French?

[CANADIEN]

I'm not from Canada and I don't know much about the country. Aren't the official languages Canadian and French?

For once, you said something that makes sense... almost. You don't know much about anything.