I have to disagree with you on this one. If I have to listen to another argument that America's youth must be subjected to competition competition competition, I'll scream.

About .001 % of American kids playing sports are going to ever get paid for it. But the reason "average" kids play ball of all kinds is that its fun, competitive, builds leadership and teamwork. That's a good thing. Its not a good thing when kids are forced into uber competition that is seemingly a referendum on their personal value. In my days of Little League, I sure liked my teammates, enjoyed the times I got hits or didn't drop the ball, but I sure didn't like my coach yelling at me for striking out or encouraging the worst kid on the team to never swing, just walk or get hit by the pitch.

Yeah, too bad for the kid -- but he still gets to hit, and I'm certain someone with his talent could find a league suitable in the NYC area. This is a church league. Hopefully a lot of those kids will keep playing in various leagues their whole lives, not drop out for other "pursuits" because "they aren't too good".

Its perfectly fine, and probably preferable, that different leagues promote different levels of competition and emphasis (or lack thereof) on talent.

Dave - I've got to disagree with you on this one as well. It sounds to me as if the goal of the church league is for kids to have fun. I played in church basketball leagues as a boy, and it was fun to not have to undergo the Darwinian selection that occurred in rec leagues. I didn't belong in a rec league- it was a horrible experience when I tried it. Church league gave me a chance to continue to play and have fun.

There are organizations, Little League in this cae, in which dominating players such as these are welcome.

i'd have to agree with you dave, although i wouldn't go as far as to sell tickets ;-).

there should be, in every league, a healthy dose of competition, and as long as this kid isn't cheating, or is lying about his age, he should be able to pitch in the league. it's interesting that a church league is discriminating against someone for having too much "god given" talent.

i don't know about the new rules in little leagues, but it would seem rational to me that having too much talent isn't against the rules.

as for Gambino's comments, why would it make a difference if he was able to dominate on offense and hit 10 home runs? that doesn't make much sense to me.

I agree with dave on this one... and as far as church leagues not being competitve.... i'm not so sure of that. I played in a VERY competitive church basketball league that was considered the best league for children of average skill level (or above)in my hometown. They played the best players and benched the mediocre ones (me). Kids would come from all of the neighboring cities to play in the league so the competition was tough. On the other side of that, The FUN league was little league where everyone got to play in the game and be teammates and enemies with the kids down the block.

Steve,

Anthony is in little league. I believe what is happening is the church team is looking for games, so they arrange games with other teams. If they want to tell the kid, "you're too good for the church league, go play little league," I guess that's okay. But they're inviting the other team to play them, and making rules for how they can use their roster. I don't agree with that. If they want to control the competition, invite other teams.

And besides, what if one of the church kids gets a hit off this guy? He'd be a huge hero.

Adw, I'm with you on the yelling coaches. Sports at this level should be about learning, not winning. But these children can learn something from facing a tough pitcher, and the more they face him, the more they'll learn.

As a former Little League coach that this is silly on so many levels.

How in the world is it helping the kids, even if your goal is just to have fun, to lower the playing level?

In so many ways we lower standards to make sure everyone wins, all we end up doing is reaching the lowest common denominator, and nobody excels.

Last year I coached against a team that had some really good pitching. One of our average batters was coming up, he had struck out earlier, and he was worried about going back out. I didn't call on the other team to change pitchers so he could have a better chance, I coached him. I told him not to worry about waiting for a 'good pitch' because they're all good, just swing at it. He hit a double, and the look on his face that day was worth everything because he knew he had done something that he didn't think he could do before.

He had been challenged and he had risen to face that challenge, it wasn't handed to him on a platter.

~Mark

I disagree with Dave on this one. I've been to little league games where there's one kid who's developed faster than the rest, and is clearly playing on a different plane. Typically, he's the pitcher.

I don't think at 11 years old, it has anything to do with kids learning to compete. It has to do with them not having the reflexes or hand-eye coordination necessary to hit a ball coming in at that speed yet. It's neither fun nor competetive for one guy to strikeout 3 kids much smaller than him every inning. Move him up a level where the playing field is more equal.

I definitely agree with David on this one, yet another case of the overprotective generation of parents right now looking out for their children's wittle feewings.

These are the same type of parents who try to ban dodgeball, not because kids can get hurt but because the worst players get knocked out first.

My only concern is for the kids' safety. If they're wearing those football-like face masks like they do in little league, let the kid pitch, at least part of the game.

I'm with Al - if the kid's dangerous to young hitters with underdeveloped reflexes, as this kid may be, he doesn't belong in the league (I got beaned repeatedly in a rec league). But I wouldn't ban him just because he's too good. Heck, (1) nobody's self-esteem gets hurt by losing to someone this good; there's a built-in excuse there when he blows away the whole team every time, and (2) some day, if this kid grows up to be Roger Clemens, his opponents will cherish telling the tale of batting against him.

I think the coach is missing a chance to inspire and challenge his players instead of giving them a way out of a difficult situation. What message does that send to his squad? It is okay to skip out on the difficult times. If the person is better than you, might as well concede without even giving it a whirl. What is next, this math problem is too hard, might as well skip it and not even try. I say rise up and face the challenges that arise in your life and if you fail, dust yourself off and try again. This is how we get better, through honest effort, not avoidence. Baseball is a great game and one of the great things it teaches is how to deal with failure.

One last note. Who says they will all K? Isn't one of the greatest things in the world when the people least likely to actually persevere and succeed. Everyone feels great when Timmy Lupas catches the fly ball, right?