11-year-olds and the fundamental creepiness of the Little League World Series

By Dan Baer

As is seemingly the case every year in this state, one of the local Little League teams has won the regional championship and is headed for the Little League World Series in Williamsport, PA this week.

This, of course, means that the local and national media circus is pitching the tent and painting up the clowns, ready to crown Peabody West Little League as the greatest group of 11-year-old's to slap together a baseball team in Massachusetts history.

Worldwide it seems the LLWS has become a symbol of purity and camaraderie among the youngest of baseball players, but I am at the point in my life where I can't take it any more. The LLWS has to be one of the most over-hyped, over done, creepiest sports tournaments around and I don't think it is OK.

Is it great for the kids? Of course. Is it a good experience for both families and youth baseball? Yes. Should it be done away with? Of course not.

On the other hand, you have to ask yourself a few more questions. Is the LLWS actually good baseball? Not even close. Should it be glorified in a prime-time national broadcast on ESPN? Absolutely not. Could a bunch of kids a few weeks away from returning to school make better use of their time- and their parents, who have to take weeks off of work, better use of their money? Yes. Is there something extremely creepy about grown adults with no affiliation to the team getting excited about a group of 11-year-olds playing a poor quality of baseball? That would be a resounding yes.

There is something fundamentally weird to me when I ponder the thought of normal, every day people enjoying watching these little kids play baseball. Unless it is your kid, or a friend of the family, or your under 14, there is absolutely no reason to take any interest in Little League.

First of all, I don't care what anyone says, it is not good baseball. It is not “pure” unless if by pure you mean underdeveloped and sloppy. Every year there is some team from somewhere that has some kid who looks like he is 17 (remember Danny Almonte?) that dominates every game, and most of the games are either decided by a late-game mistake or a 150 foot home run. Sure, its fun for those kids, a great experience. Congratulations. I have no interest in watching your error-filled mess of a baseball game.

Every day, all across the country, kids are learning to play sports in all sorts of youth leagues. Soccer, basketball, baseball, football, go cart racing, hockey. Why does Little League get all of the glory? It isn't played any better than those other kids playing those other sports. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that those New York City rec league youth basketball teams (who probably play at a much higher level than any Little League team) will never have the opportunity- or financial backing- to play in a “worldwide” tournament.

Now, lets get one thing straight. I am not by any means suggesting that the LLWS not be played. What I am asking is that it not be played on national TV, and even more specifically, I am asking that people with little to no affiliation to the team find something better to do with their time.

For an example of the outlandish media coverage, we can examine the very publication that signs my paychecks, who has decided to send four, yes FOUR people to the LLWS this week to cover the Peabody West team that emerged from this region (keep in mind this is the same newspaper that is laying people off because it has no money).

I understand that this is a big story, but does it really warrant blanket coverage? Should there be anything more than a reporter and photographer there? To be honest, in almost any other case, we would have written down the coaches phone number and called him after the game from our desks. But apparently the whole world has gone mad for Little League. Who knew?

To make matters worse, some of the reporters here (they know better than to ask me) have been sent out to Route 1 to interview businesses about why they support the team. Really? That is a head scratcher. Better get a few more investigative reporters on that case.

At the national level, my disgust with ESPN is at an all time high. How can a network that essentially devotes 30-seconds a day to some major sports like hockey, soccer and NASCAR (who it has a contract with, by the way), justify leading off highlight shows and bumping programming for a bunch of kids playing a glorified sand lot baseball game?

That said, perhaps the largest problem I have with the LLWS overall has nothing to do with the media hype or the coverage, or the creepiness of 30-year-old single men getting excited about watching these games. It comes down to something as simple as crying.

Watch the LLWS this week and I promise you that every losing team will have one thing in common- A tear-filled mess of a breakdown as soon as they lose. Kids crying like their families were kidnapped, or their dog was run over by a bus right in front of them.

I'll get over the coverage. I'll get over the creepy dudes. I'll even get over the anger I feel toward my own employer. But kids, there is no crying in baseball.

Tony LaRussa, baseball super genius

By Brett M. Rhyne

"The philosophy of one century is the common sense of the next."

—Henry Ward Beecher

On this day in 1979, the Chicago White Sox named Tony LaRussa manager, and changed baseball forever. LaRussa managed in Chicago eight years, then moved on to Oakland, where he managed for 10 years and won three consecutive AL pennants and a World Series title. He is currently in his 14th year managing the St. Louis Cardinals, where he has won two NL pennants and a World Series title. With 2,519 career wins, LaRussa ranks third all-time, behind only Connie Mack and John McGraw.

What I find most noteworthy about LaRussa is his strategic innovation; specifically, he invented the modern-day bullpen structure. For much of baseball history, teams only had a "bullpen ace:" a go-to bullpen guy who was used in almost all close games, whether a team was ahead or behind. It wasn't until the 1960's that what we today call a "closer" — a reliever who is only brought in when his team has a lead late in the game — began to emerge. These proto-closers would frequently pitch two or even three innings a game. Even then, most other relief pitchers, generally speaking, were guys who weren't good enough to be in the starting rotation.

What LaRussa started to do in the Eighties was designate specific roles to his relief pitchers:

• The closer only pitched the ninth, or infrequently, part of the eighth inning.


• The set-up man pitched the eighth — and sometimes the seventh as well — to provide a bridge from the starter to the closer.


• The left-handed specialist was usually a southpaw who comes in to face one or two particularly dangerous left-handed batters in the opposing lineup.


• There might be a fireballer, usually a righty, to come in and face one or two batters when there were men on base and a strikeout was required.


• And the long reliever was often a veteran at the tail end of his career who could step in and pitch three or four innings should the game's starter get knocked out early.

Since LaRussa began developing this bullpen structure, the quality and value of the pitchers who fill these roles has continued to increase. On very good teams, with a lot of resources, relievers are no longer necessarily the lesser-talented pitchers on a staff; in fact, many players have made careers of filling these bullpen niches. It's a testament to LaRussa's genius that we take for granted this relief corps structure, and that it is now found in just about every bullpen in the majors. Kudos to you, Tony LaRussa!

Blaise Collins

Love this!

Grace Adair

I don't know if his philosophy has necessarily been a good thing, but he's certainly been a successful manager.

I personally hated scoring games when he was managing against Valentine. They both would go psycho with the pitching changes and double switches... by the 8th inning I'd either run out of room on the scorecard, or just throw my hands in the air & give up.

Nathaniel Heidenheimer

For a genius he certainly has caused me to a lot of implants to pull out. \He seems to have a knach for pinchhitting with citizens who have not had a hit since april of 1915 and in the eight with runners on and first and third with one out. He lost last nights game. Thinks too much. Way overrated.

Brett M. Rhyne

Another thought on LaRussa: his gaudy win total is due in no small part to longevity — although one must be a pretty good manager to remain employed for so long — and his career .534 winning percentage only ranks 63rd all-time. What is impressive, though, is that his teams won their division 12 out of 30 times (and the Cardinals are currently in first as well. In recent memory, only Bobby Cox (15 of 29) and Joe Torre (13 of 27) are better, and we all know the resource-rich franchises they managed.

Dan Baer

Good manager, he was very innovative. I think Denis Eckersly can thank him for his Hall of Fame plaque. That said, I hated the "Bash Brothers" and Ricky Henderson, so I am contractually obligated to also hate Tony LaRussa.

Brett M. Rhyne

I agree about Eck, as well as the Cash Brothers (juicers). Hendu was a god, and entertaining to boot; I was disappointed in his uncharacteristically modest HOF speech —he thanked his MOTHER, for god's sake. And Tony's loyalty to McGwire, as well as his enabling of the whole steroid culture in Oakland, is inexcusable —except, as a realist, LaRussa only cared about winning.

Dan Baer

... the same could be said about Bill Belichick. Football's version of Tony LaRussa?

Brett M. Rhyne

In a lot of ways, yes. Certainly the strategic innovation and the desire to do anything to win, sure. Did you read Holley's "Patriot Reign"? Didn't do justice to Belichick's — or the organization's — genius. Certainly not the way Mike Lewis did for Billy Beane in "Moneyball," still the gold standard for works of this genre.

And "Ball Four", of course. Shitfuck!

Susie Sampierre Lmt

Ball Four - omg - Jim Bouton - love the story that pepatone says about putting talcum powder in the blow dryers.....hee hee.

Brett M. Rhyne

I almost said "Aw, shitfuck!" was my favorite curse. I was using it a lot, until the wife told me it was unflattering. So now I can't use it, at least around the house. Aw, shitfuck.

Dan Baer

I never read Holley's book, which is surprising because I am a big Michael Holley fan. Did not like Moneyball tho. Billy Beane came off to me as too pretentious for his own good, and well... the A's haven't won a thing since the LaRussa days.

Brett M. Rhyne

This is true. I think Beane is more high-strung and controlling than he is pretentious, as evidenced by the way he treated manager Art Howe —telling him how to stand in the dugout, "trading" him to the Mets after the season, etc. There's a detached, almost alienated way he treats players and coaches, like they're Strat-o-Matic cards come to life. Around the year Lewis chronicled (2002), the A's had a rotation of Hudson, Zito and Mulder, Isringhausen in the pen, and averaged 98 wins, but still couldn't make it out of the first round of the postseason. So while I do think Beane's general management philosophy is brilliant, even revolutionary, he clearly doesn't get the human element. This is where a good field manager comes in, but Beane doesn't allow his field managers the freedom to do their job.

Brett M. Rhyne

I do think Beane is to general management what LaRussa is to field management —maybe even more game-changing. Witness the Red Sox.

Dan Baer

Well, that was going to be my next point. Theo has done Moneyball better than Beane. Although, he has MANY more resources to work with, and a good field manager in Tito, too. I always liked Art Howe, but he never did anything after his Oakland days, either.

Those A's teams were horrifically disappointing. Aside from the rotation, don't forget they had a juiced up Giambi brothers and Miguel Tejada the year he won the MVP. Not to mention Eric Chavez at third and if I remember correctly, Jermaine Dye was in the outfield there for a few years, too.

Brett M. Rhyne

Not sure about Dye, but the A's did have stellar everyday players, thanks in large part to Beane's brilliant strategy of drafting undervalued players. As usual, the Sox are problematic because of their limitless resources —moneyball on steroids. Although, interestingly, the most Beanesque elements of their approach (drafting, farm system, trades) have been much more fruitful than their Steinbrennerish ones (i.e., free agent signings). Still, it takes a lot of money to sign good draftees, and to run a good farm system.

Dan Baer

Dye was with the A's from 01-04, so he would have been right there with those guys.

Your 100 percent right about the Sox. It is amazing to me that such a well-run franchise can whif on so many guys (Drew, Dice K, anyone who has played shortstop in the last 6 years not named Orlando Cabrerra) but their farm system rivals the early 90's Braves.

I will say that Clay Buchholz has done nothing to impress me, though.

Brett M. Rhyne

Cabrera was good, but he came in the Nomar trade, I believe. Alex Gonzalez was a good free agent shortstop, so of course they had to let him go.

Buchholz has been hyped far beyond his actual talent, something the Sox also have a knack for. They should have traded him last week; the more he pitches, the lower his value. (Maybe this is why they kept him in the minors all year.)

Dan Baer

Agreed. If I had to chose Buchholz or Masterson, I'll take the latter. He will be a solid #3 or #4 guy for the Indians. Glad to see Dan Bard sticking around. I'm not a Papelbon fan (young roger clemens) and the thought of Bard blowing that 100 mph fastball past hitters in a year or two gets me tingly

Brett M. Rhyne

Papelbon's act got tired a couple years ago. His arm seems to be catching up, as well. I also think Cleveland got a terrific young pitcher in Masterson, but the Sox did very well in that trade, too. You have to give quality to get quality. I wonder if Theo offered Buchholz for Martinez straight up and the Indians refused.

Dan Baer

wouldn't surprise me. he kind of has that Bronson Arroyo build, and we all saw what happened to him in Cincy... not much. I was disappointed to hear that Oakland offered Orlando Cabrerra for Buchholz straight up and the Sox turned it down. I guess whatever bad blood was there after 04 is still lingering.

Brett M. Rhyne

I never did get why the Sox didn't try to resign him. Were they just gaga over Renteria? Any insights?

Dan Baer

I have heard through some semi-reliable sources that there were a few off the field incidents, potentially involving some love interests of other players, but that kind of dirty laundry stuff is rarely confirmed. It would make sense tho. If you remember, John Henry kind of went on a crusade to lose guys like that (D-Lowe).

I don't know the real reason, but it can't be related to anything on the field, especially if they still won't take him back. He is exactly what they need at that position and he was available cheap at the deadline.