I'm of two minds. Reilly does a good job explaining why I'd pitch to the good hitter; I'll not recount that. But on the other hand, if I pitch to the good hitter, and he burns me, how do I explain my decision to the kids that I coach? "I know you all worked hard, but I didn't want to pick on the cancer surivor"? I guess... but I don't know.

"You should play to win", but the league has already decided that there are winning strategies that it does not want employed (i.e. all players bat, 4 runs/inn). So yes it is a championship game, but it is first an instructional league with full participation. IBB would seem to go against the spirit of the league, and if the coach of Romney's team felt that was true there would be no need to "protect" his best hitter and plenty of incentive to "hide' his worst hitter among the better hitters to lessen his impact.
IMO, employing sabermatic strategy at this level seems harsh. BTW, why doesn't anyone ask how the pitcher and fielders felt when the coach decides that they can't handle letting the other team's best hitter swing at a pitch.

I've heard several youth-baseball coaches say that an intentional walk at the 9-10 year old level is unheard of. So I'd have to agree with Thom, that the IBB goes against the spirit of the league.

On the subject of batting order: when everybody gets to bat, the coaches usually alternate good and bad hitters. That way, you don't wind up with several bad hitters in a row. Of course, that lineup strategy assumes the IBB won't be used by the opposition.

I have to conclude that, in this situation, the Yankees coach was out of line.

Dan Patrick on ESPN Radio dedicated most of his show Wednesday to this story including an interview with the kid's father. Dan's sidekick Keith Olbermann suggested that if the Yankee coach felt he needed to walk the good hitter, he could have also walked the cancer survivor (there would have been an open base) and just pitched to the next kid. Controversy avoided. They also found it ironic that in what was supposedly a non-competitive (I.e. just for fun) league, they had a championship game. Bottom line is that in the last sentence of the article, Romney said he wanted to work hard so next year he'd be the kid that gets walked.

People are just plain over sensitive. I'm only 22 and I remember when I played little league and got plunked in the side of the head, my coach asked me if I could see and then took my bat and patted me towards first base. I wasn't scared of getting hit any more after that.

I agree the rules should be 'relaxed' slightly because these are kids... we don't want them to get KC royals syndrome too early in life... that could be damaging. But at the same time, not everyone can be the Yankees.

If no one looses, then everyone wins. That's not sport...

I coach youth baseball - this year it was 12 year olds. I would never intentionally walk a kid, under any circumstances. I don't care how the league rules are structured, the goal is to teach the kids to be better players. How is the pitcher going to learn to take care of the other team's best hitter if he is ordered to IBB in crunch time?

I had a situation this year in which we were losing 6-1 going into the bottom of the final inning. The other team changed pitchers, brought in a kid who threw strikes but was hittable. We loaded them up, and he struck out my clean up hitter. The #5 hitter drilled the firt pitch to deep CF, resulting in a grand slam and a 6-5 score, with one out. The coach immediately pulled the kid, which I thought was very bush league. At age 12, their only job is to throw strikes, and he was doing that. He was in tears as he was sent to play 1st.

We got back to back hits off the next pitcher, and had first and third with one out. I sent the kid on first on the first pitch to get the winning run to 2nd. Unfortunately the batter lined out to to 1B, resulting in a very easy double play by the kid that had just been yanked. There is something to be said for kharma I guess.

One of my favorite SNL moments, Will Ferrell from the "Get on the bag" skit:

Get on the bag! Get on the bag! I will chain you to a pipe, in a crawl space, if you do not get on the damn bag!

If a score is kept, the goal is to win. If you have a championship game, then obviously, winning is rewarded. I don't see anything wrong with the IBB. If any of the kids on the Yankees were asked prior to the walk what they would want to do: Pitch to the best player on the Sox who has a good shot at beating you or pitch to Romney who probably wouldn't beat you. I'm pretty sure every kid would say they want to win.

Even if everyone wants to say it's an instructional league, another thing kids need to experience is losing. Protecting them from that distances them from reality.

Things like this are exactly why I turned down a friend's offer to help him coach his kid's team. They are still Little League, but knowing myself I would be doing the kids a disservice by not instilling in them my desire to win. And that's fine at this young of an age. Once you get into the 90' basepaths I think the "It's fun and doesn't matter if you win or lose" needs to be tabled. Until then though, and in cases like this, it's all about doing your best. To me, that means challenging the best hitter. If he beats you there is still a lesson that can be learned. I really don't like the way league like the one mentioned are run, because I think losing is an important thing to learn and accept, but I see how these can be attractive to parents and non-uber-competitive kids.

I can understand the objections and maybe I'm a bit cold-hearted but I have no problem with the strategy here. When I was a kid, I had a good glove and a lousy bat. When I struck out I cried. It took a while (too long) but I finally realized how embarrassing my behavior was and learned the lesson at hand: stop feeling sorry for yourself and work on your hitting. What good is an instructional league if the kids aren't learning? The cancer survivor learned the lesson - "Hey, I have to get better with the stick. That way, the next time this happens, I'll make those guys pay!" (Also, the implication is that he won't use cancer as a crutch which I think is a great attitude - he wants to be treated like any other 10-yr old and has every right to demand it).

Beautiful! Lesson learned. The best pitchers in MLB IBB hitters all the time when a base is open and an inferior bat waits on deck. That's the way the game is played. If we're teaching kids to play the game, let's not water it down, even if they're 10.

I hope to see Romney swat a few ropes next season.

There are points on both sides, and you don't want to treat the weaker, cancer-surviving kid in a condescending manner. But kids already all know the lesson about wanting to win, and many youth leagues prefer to try to teach other lessons, about allowing all to participate fully, about recognizing that players on the other team are part of the common enterprise, not enemies to be beaten at all cost -- even about trying to beat the best of the other team, recognizing that if you can't get the good little league hitter out, you don't have much chance of getting players out in higher more competitive leagues. All of this is reality too -- and reality is also that seeing winning and losing as the highest goal can keep you from greater successes in life (not just warm and fuzzy successes, but concrete successes that require cooperation among potentially competing parties.)

I see no unfairness in having a youth league that assigns players to teams and requires that all players have real playing time, also have a rule, wrietten or otherwise, that all of the players have to be pitched to.

To me, the key thing is that you don't treat the situation differently because you suddenly want to be champion of the youth league. If the league regularly walks good hitters to get to the weaker, you don't refuse to do so because the weaker hitter has a special story. But in this league the common law was you don't walk better kids to get to worse -- apparently parents in the stands and even the umpire were taken aback by the decision to do so. I wouldn't tell my youth league kids to throw high and tight at the good hitter, go into second with spikes up, and I wouldn't try to water down the field if the other team was faster -- and in this particular league (as opposed to American Legion ball or the Little League World Series) I wouldn't have ordered to pitcher to intentionally walk the better hitter.

I think if the coach of the Yankees would have just pitched to the sox best hitter, a controversy would have been avoided. When I read this article the first thing that came to my mind was a lack of compassion on the coaches part. He singled (no pun intended) the little boy out and that you never do. His actions were calculated. I can remember playing little league baseball and I wonder how I would have felt being in the field knowing that we could either walk their best hitter and pitch to their worst or just play ball and pitch to everyone. I think I would have pushed for our coach to walk the kid and pitch to their worst batter so we could win. But I also think that if it would have played out the opposite way and we pitched to their best hitter and lost, maybe looking back on that situation when I was older I would have been very proud of our coach for playing the game the right way. We have to remember that there are lessons to be learned from losing and winning. This Romney boy just had to learn a very important life lesson the hard way...that their are those who will single out the weak for their own gain. Shame on the coach for that.

//Pitch to the best player on the Sox who has a good shot at beating you or pitch to Romney who probably wouldn't beat you. I'm pretty sure every kid would say they want to win.//

My actual little league coaching experience tells me your wrong. I've been in this situation several times, and every time I handled it the same way. I went out to the mound, reminded the pitcher the kid at the plate had hit him hard that game, and asked the pitcher if he wanted to pitch to him or walk him. As I said above, I would never order an IBB in Little League, and I'm not entirely sure what I would have done if the pitcher asked for one. Because the 3 or 4 times I've done that, the pitcher has without hesitation wanted to face down the stud batter at the plate.

Your job as a little league coach is like being a minor league coach in the pros. Job 1 is to develop players, while trying to win. However, when those two conflict, developing players always takes presidence.

Regardless of the outcome, taking on the opponents best hitter is better for your pitcher's development. It might not be good for the coaches ego, but that isn't supposed to matter right?

If you keep score, then someone needs to win, someone needs to loose. I have no problem with the IBB. Kids nned to now that when they grow older, life gets competitive.

COD,
I don't think the IBB in this situation is hurting development. Teach them the lesson during the regular season, not in the championship game. The championship game is for winning.

Little League baseball is all about the Dr. Pepper and the pizza after the game. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to make up for their own failures in life through their children.

And to the guy who said: "Kids nned to now that when they grow older, life gets competitive."

I hope you don't have children. They'll have plenty of opportunity to learn that before they become adults. They don't need to learn it at 9 in a baseball game.

Impossible to defend the coach who walked the youngster in a league that makes sure everyone gets an opportunity.

As a former Little League P, I don't think I would have complied with the coach's order. I'd have asked coach if he wanted me to plunk him in the ribs or pitch to him. My compliments to those who coached me. If this coach told me to hit him, I'd have handed him the ball. My coaches taught me how to play the game and to win...and the importance of sportsmanship. Winning shouldn't happen at the expense of the other. If coaches convey this message, we'll change the world one individual at a time.
Bill

Seriously. Didn't The Bad News Bears teach us anything?

Batting the worst hitter right after the best hitter could help them stay out of double plays.

If I were the manager, I'd like to think another good option would be to go out, ask the pitcher if he thinks he can get the guy out - or at least keep him from hitting a homer - because he'll be able to face the weak hitter afterwards, in a tie game, as long as the slugger doesn't homer, and then it's just extra innings. It wasn't "face the star or lose" though it obviously wasn't a simple question.

You are all missing the main point. What this coach did was tell his own team "you are not good enough to get the others teams best player out". So lets pitch to kid who I know you'll be able to get out. He dished his own team. Are you all so stupid you can't see that. And you know what else, unfortunately sometimes you have to treat people differently! Isn't that to darn bad for all of you so called "normal" people out there. What makes you normal is your disregard for humanity. You all need to grow up. This isn't about ten year old baseball and strategy, this is about life lessons and two coaches who aren't real men and who have to live through ten year olds. A real man doesn't play to win, he plays to succeed. All the rest of you men out there saying it was the right thing to do probably aren't real men either, you probably have to get your kicks through ten year olds too. Your all pathetic!!

This kind of horsesh*t is what produces effete, spineless whiners like Mike Pussina.

The fact that the kid had cancer should never at any point enter into the discussion. I'm pretty sure he would like to be treated just like everybody else. Either he can play or he can't. Baseball isn't group therapy.

In high school my couch used to tell us to throw at the guy's head on a squeeze play (you can't bunt it and you have to get out of the way). That was like 10 years ago. In 5 more years they'll have all the players in full catcher's gear, and soon after winning and losing will be outlawed and the "players" will just sit around in their uniforms picking flowers and drinking smoothies.

At least it's less wussy than soccer, but just barely.

P.S. Remember in Little League when you would have a kid on your team who was terrible and they had to play them anyway? Didn't you used to hate that kid? Kids who are no good at sports should not be encouraged to continue, they should be encouraged to spend their time doing something else they enjoy that they might be good at so as not to waste theirs and everyone else's time. Or they could just be thrown off a cliff. Either way is good with me.

I invite Matt Davis to join me in a game of soccer to put to rest his lie that soccer is a game for wussies. I offer as an argument that baseball, that most pastoral of games, is more for wussies than soccer. I offer further that if even a tenth of our MLB players can keep up the required pace of only one half a soccer game that I would be amazed. However, this isn't the point here.

Childhood sports is about so much more than winning and losing. It's really sad that we would rather teach the vulgarity of win at all costs and destroy the beauty that is doing our very best, and if cheating to win is your best, what sadder comentary on your own character is there?

There is a major difference in a league designed to be competitive and one designed for recreation. Character, team play, fairness, respect for others, all these and more can be learned in the arena of childhood sports. These lessons can also be completely ignored to the detriment of all our children.

"It's really sad that we would rather teach the vulgarity of win at all costs and destroy the beauty that is doing our very best"

Samantha,

Back in the old days people with this attitude got killed by saber-toother tigers before they could pollute the gene pool. Put down the bong and step away from the computer.

Kids need to learn that life is unfair, miserable, and unforgiving. Kids' sports is great because it lets losers learn their place in life at an early age, and adjust their expectations for their pathetic future lives accordingly.

Your pal, Matt

The people posting that that the IBB was right and that they should aim to win is forgetting one thing. There is more than one way to win. The way that would build character win or lose is to challenge the best hitter, make it a real sport. You win? You've beaten the best. You lose? You gave it your best shot and will have to improve. If you guarantee yourself a win by beating up the weakest player, then where is the sport? What have they learned?

Hey Matt, I was that kid who sucked at baseball. I, for one, didn't hate me when I played youth baseball. But I don't care too much for jerks who hated wimps like me.

How about getting a youth coach who actually teaches his players how to improve their skills? I wish I'd had one of those.

Instead, I took up karate when I was in 8th grade, and actually got fairly good at that. I did that for about 5 years. It was OK, but I still like baseball better, which I still suck at.

I coach little league and at the 9/10 year old level all I want them doing is throwing strikes - if they hit it then they hit it. Having said that, Reilly is an absolute fool for trying to make a big deal out of this. Any league that has a max number of runs in an inning isn't baseball anyways. Save crap like that for t-ball. At the little league level you don't waste time scouting the other team (at least I didn't). If the batter is a big guy I'd wave for my OF'rs to play deeper. If the batter was a real little kid I'd wave them in. Adam has a point that most coaches don't know how to teach. The kids with already developed skills get attention. The kids without skills get stuck on the bench or in the outfield for whatever the mandatory playing requirement is.

To be honest, I really don't care about the kid crying. Baseball is about failure. Great major league hitters fail 7 out of every 10 at bats. Every kid on my team this past year experienced some type of failure or another. Some cried, some didn't. They all got over it. We don't have enough trees if some idiot columnist is going to write an article every time a 9 year old kid cries over a temporary failure.

Jeez you guys! Romney got to hit with the game on the line! What on earth is wrong with that? Its why you start to play whether you are Ruth or Romney--because you want to get a chance to do something special. Everyone is focused on the fact that he made an out-- but if he singles, he's king for a day.

"Its supposed to be hard. Its the hard that makes it great. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it."

The story here is not that the evil, win-hungry manager picked on the sick kid; its that the sick kid was playing... and plans to play next year. Folks should be celebrating, not fretting.

This IS about how a manager showed children that you can make decisions to win that are not within the spirit of the game being played. Maybe Romney can start taking growth hormones and use an engineered bat while the first base coach steals the catcher's signs for him. Would all you pro-IBB apologists be OK with that strategy? It's real life, they see every year in the MLB. I applaud that he was playing and he is using the experience to focus on improving. he sounds like an awesome kid and he proved it by dealing with real life in a positive way. But, that coach is still wrong and the message he sent is wrong.
I'm not some bleeding heart, soft, coach potato either. I have played many sports (and bent the rules), coached a couple (yelled about the other guy bending the rules), and reffed as well (enforced the rules). All three experiences tell me that the strategy employed is wrong at that level no matter the outcome or people affected.

There is a reason why at this level adults incharge of youth ballplayers are called "coaches" and not "managers". Let the kids play, and ultimately win or lose the game. When a coach at this level (non select team) issues an intentional walk he is basicly saying that he needs to be locked in his mothers basement running a fantasy team and not incharge of teaching youth the game of baseball.
The fact that they did it with the intention of setting up a boy with a history of disability for failure just makes them scumbags.

Oh and by the way in another article I read on this incident, It stated that this was the first intentional walk issued all season. Scumbags.

the Red Sox coach should be questioned as much as anyone...if they weren't playing to win, then why have a "championship game"?

i think the thing that stands out about this whole situation is...the kid wakes up the next morning determined to be a better hitter...the dad now spends all his time dragging this other coach (who is a volunteer, by the way) thru the mud, trashing him on every talk show possible. good to see (at least) the kid take the high road!