featsofstrength wrote:Is a 9-yr old who throws 40 mph a big deal? My son threw low 50's when 10 (he was never measured at 9) and people didn't get goofy about him pitching in little league. My feeling is that 40 mph at 9 yrs is certainly good but is not unusual enough to prohibit him from pitching.
Now, the 12 yr old who threw 78 that my son had to hit against last year was a freak. Maybe we should be talking about that boy!
This was my initial reaction as well. If he was hitting the high-50s that would be one thing, but I just don't see what the big deal is personally...
Maybe Ill feel differently when I have my own little munchkin, but in the mean time
i'd have an issue with them removing him because he's too good, but if the other kids are flat out scared to face him, then for the greater good make this kid play another position until he gets a little older
If it was my son I would not want him playing against kids his own age. I would want him playing against older kids so that it would be more competitive and he would have more fun and get better. I would also want him to experience losing at some point.
If my son was playing against him I would want the kid moved up against older kids so that my kid could get into some competitive games have some fun and have a chance of winning.
Mookie4ever wrote:If it was my son I would not want him playing against kids his own age. I would want him playing against older kids so that it would be more competitive and he would have more fun and get better. I would also want him to experience losing at some point.
If my son was playing against him I would want the kid moved up against older kids so that my kid could get into some competitive games have some fun and have a chance of winning.
that cuts both ways though, which is why I am against this. He is at the top in this league, but he would be at the bottom of the next (potentially), so then he is facing unfair competition, I think people need to grow up and accept that there will always be someone better than you, sometimes significantly so. And his arm may be ready for the next level, what about his bat and fielding? I think if someone really is unsafe, then yes. But this isn't of that level, especially since he has control too.
Mookie4ever wrote:If it was my son I would not want him playing against kids his own age. I would want him playing against older kids so that it would be more competitive and he would have more fun and get better. I would also want him to experience losing at some point.
If my son was playing against him I would want the kid moved up against older kids so that my kid could get into some competitive games have some fun and have a chance of winning.
that cuts both ways though, which is why I am against this. He is at the top in this league, but he would be at the bottom of the next (potentially), so then he is facing unfair competition, I think people need to grow up and accept that there will always be someone better than you, sometimes significantly so. And his arm may be ready for the next level, what about his bat and fielding? I think if someone really is unsafe, then yes. But this isn't of that level, especially since he has control too.
Having done things like this in youth soccer for years now, I must comment. The kid wouldn't (see: shouldn't) be at the bottom of the next age level league. He ought to be in the middle of the pack. It's about developing him as a player. A 9, 10, 11 year old dominating is doing very little for his development as a player. In order to get better, you must be challenged. Now, soccer is a vastly different game than baseball, but I was, and still am, always in favor of moving kids up an age group if they will be able to be competitive (that's the key) playing a year up. Will they be a superstar on the team? No. Will they be physically over-matched frequently? Yes. Are either of these things bad for his overall development as a player? Not in my opinion. His parents may not like seeing him actually struggle instead of just tooling around his peers and not learning anything, but you've got to see the big picture. When I let a 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 year old play a year up in soccer, by the time they make it to my Varsity team, they are used to playing with kids who are bigger, faster, stronger, and likely more skilled than they are. But they've competed, and succeeded at that level (or else I would have moved them back down), so when they get to the important games, against a level playing field, they have a leg up. Now the kids are their age, and the relative speed, size, strength is narrowed. And in my experience, you put two kids who are relatively evenly matched against one another, while one has played at his age level and likely been one of the top 2 or 3 kids on his club team, and the other has been in the 10, 11, 12 range of players on his team in an older division, the kid who has played up plays faster, stronger, more aware, smarter, and outplays the other kid; because it's been demanded of him against his competition all along, while the other kid has been feeling good about himself skating by and not being challenged.
Mookie4ever wrote:If it was my son I would not want him playing against kids his own age. I would want him playing against older kids so that it would be more competitive and he would have more fun and get better. I would also want him to experience losing at some point.
If my son was playing against him I would want the kid moved up against older kids so that my kid could get into some competitive games have some fun and have a chance of winning.
that cuts both ways though, which is why I am against this. He is at the top in this league, but he would be at the bottom of the next (potentially), so then he is facing unfair competition, I think people need to grow up and accept that there will always be someone better than you, sometimes significantly so. And his arm may be ready for the next level, what about his bat and fielding? I think if someone really is unsafe, then yes. But this isn't of that level, especially since he has control too.
Having done things like this in youth soccer for years now, I must comment. The kid wouldn't (see: shouldn't) be at the bottom of the next age level league. He ought to be in the middle of the pack. It's about developing him as a player. A 9, 10, 11 year old dominating is doing very little for his development as a player. In order to get better, you must be challenged. Now, soccer is a vastly different game than baseball, but I was, and still am, always in favor of moving kids up an age group if they will be able to be competitive (that's the key) playing a year up. Will they be a superstar on the team? No. Will they be physically over-matched frequently? Yes. Are either of these things bad for his overall development as a player? Not in my opinion. His parents may not like seeing him actually struggle instead of just tooling around his peers and not learning anything, but you've got to see the big picture. When I let a 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 year old play a year up in soccer, by the time they make it to my Varsity team, they are used to playing with kids who are bigger, faster, stronger, and likely more skilled than they are. But they've competed, and succeeded at that level (or else I would have moved them back down), so when they get to the important games, against a level playing field, they have a leg up. Now the kids are their age, and the relative speed, size, strength is narrowed. And in my experience, you put two kids who are relatively evenly matched against one another, while one has played at his age level and likely been one of the top 2 or 3 kids on his club team, and the other has been in the 10, 11, 12 range of players on his team in an older division, the kid who has played up plays faster, stronger, more aware, smarter, and outplays the other kid; because it's been demanded of him against his competition all along, while the other kid has been feeling good about himself skating by and not being challenged.
Well, that was a rant.
Well it's a judgement that doesn't have an easy answer.
Having played loads of youth soccer and through high school at the varsity level, I would say that while soccer has skill sets, they aren't as neatly divided as they are in baseball. I think the seasoning does serve a real purpose when its a fluid game like soccer or hoops. The lack of one skill set won't help, but you can lean on other things, speed, shooting, dribbling ability, positioning, etc. Baseball is more of a series of controlled actions, and you can't over rely on one thing that you do well while you catch up.
Football, if the size differential is such, well that's kind of a different story.
But pitching is only a third of the game at that age, and while his a plus pitching might be dominant beyond all get out, his hitting and fielding might be better served by remaining at that level. Moving him up might hamper his development, rather than hurt it, and it can hurt confidence etc.
And at the end of the day, it seems that basic fairness is on his side, rather than on the kids (parents really) who are overmatched, as he is of the age group the league lets play. Realistically, the coach should just refrain from using him all that often and let the kid become more well rounded, and let other kids pitch. That's what I would do.
That being said, I do think soccer and hoops (and lacrosse for those who come from an area that plays it) lend themselves more to moving up a bracket than football (if the move was based on skills rather than size/strength) and baseball.
jfg wrote:The parents should have him in a league that is more to his level or with older kids. It does no good for the kid to dominate kids who can't hit his pitches or to play a different position and if the league is truly a beginner's league it's not fair for the other kids who strikeout every time. I think I side with the league on this one.
I actually just came in here to post this, as I just heard about it.
I am from a neighboring town (I grew up there), and this is an area with a very strong and competitive baseball culture, but there are not a lot of choices as far as moving a kid around to another league. You play against the kids your age. It is also an area where there are tons of pathetic parental politics in youth sports. If this league has the mechanism in place, they probably should have bumped the kid up, but at the end of the season for the playoffs? And playing against all 11-12 year olds would probably put him in over his head.
When I was in LL there, the best kids aged 9-12 were who you played with, if you could handle the 'majors'. We'd always have a team or two with an 'unhittable' pitcher --usually a 12-year-old -- and our feeling generally was that we could not wait to play these guys to show we can hit them. Even our 9-year-olds. If we lost, at least we gave it a shot.
What are you teaching the other kids by ostracizing a kid with real skills? That they aren't good enough to take on a challenge. By the end of a season, any kid on the team should be able to move his bat through the hitting zone with some speed. If this kid is throwing strikes, I don't get how no one can hit him. Try the old 'close your eyes and swing' or teach the kids to lay one down or slap-hit. Walking off the field and forfeiting is terrible. If I was the coach of that other team, I don't care what the league said, we would have played.
Baseball is a tough sport. Learning how to strike out is also part of the game. Getting a hit off a pitcher you thought was too good is one of the best parts of the game.
They never made Amanda Wurlitzer sit out, and she had her curve breaking 3 1/2 feet.
Grouperman941 wrote:What are you teaching the other kids by ostracizing a kid with real skills? That they aren't good enough to take on a challenge. By the end of a season, any kid on the team should be able to move his bat through the hitting zone with some speed. If this kid is throwing strikes, I don't get how no one can hit him. Try the old 'close your eyes and swing' or teach the kids to lay one down or slap-hit. Walking off the field and forfeiting is terrible. If I was the coach of that other team, I don't care what the league said, we would have played.
Baseball is a tough sport. Learning how to strike out is also part of the game. Getting a hit off a pitcher you thought was too good is one of the best parts of the game.
Absolutely. Wusses.
Can't believe so many people are so focused on "developing him as a player". He's freakin 9 years old. Can we just let him play the game and have fun?
Grouperman941 wrote:What are you teaching the other kids by ostracizing a kid with real skills? That they aren't good enough to take on a challenge. By the end of a season, any kid on the team should be able to move his bat through the hitting zone with some speed. If this kid is throwing strikes, I don't get how no one can hit him. Try the old 'close your eyes and swing' or teach the kids to lay one down or slap-hit. Walking off the field and forfeiting is terrible. If I was the coach of that other team, I don't care what the league said, we would have played.
Baseball is a tough sport. Learning how to strike out is also part of the game. Getting a hit off a pitcher you thought was too good is one of the best parts of the game.
Absolutely. Wusses.
Can't believe so many people are so focused on "developing him as a player". He's freakin 9 years old. Can we just let him play the game and have fun?
There's 20 other kids on the field who want to have fun, too. Why can't he have fun against kids 1 year older than him, if he's able to play at that level?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
