• Welcome To ShotTalk.com!

    We are one of the oldest and largest Golf forums on the internet with golfers from around the world sharing tips, photos and planning golf outings.

    Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

9-year-old boy told he's too good to pitch

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,101
4
Ugggh. How many Wiki guidelines does that entry violate??? Speculation, piss poor writing, fails to present both sides of disputed matters . . .
????
Not sure what you are talking about. It didn't seem to me as though they even offered an opinion. Unlike the article you linked. Actually it didn't seem to have any further info outside of what was in the article you quoted outside of the date of birth.

????
 
OP
Harry Longshanks

Harry Longshanks

bow-chicka-bow-wow
Jul 20, 2008
718
0
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #18
????
Not sure what you are talking about. It didn't seem to me as though they even offered an opinion. Unlike the article you linked. Actually it didn't seem to have any further info outside of what was in the article you quoted outside of the date of birth.

????

In 2008, Scott was banned from pitching in his youth baseball league because his 40 mile per hour fastball could be frightening to opposing batters.

There is a dispute as to whether that is the reason why Scott was banned. The AP article presented both positions. The Wiki entry did not. A Wiki reader not otherwise familiar with the matter would be under the impression that the League's stated reasoning was both legitimate and undisputed.

Scott's parents will likely pursue legal action against the league.

Speculation. Wiki guidelines discourage (prohibit?) statements like that. (Along with phrases like, "Some might argue", "it could be said", "it has been suggested.") The correct phrasing (assuming there is a factual basis for the statement) would be something like: "Scott's mother has met with a lawyer and has stated that she has not ruled out the possibility of legal action against the League if it continues to prohibit her son from participating."

His mother, Nicole Scott, had threatened to get the league shut down after they would not let her son pitch. He is the only kid in history of baseball to have 8 no hitters in a row. On Saturday, August 23rd, a protest was held demanding the league allow Scott to pitch. Then on August 25th, 2008 his story became the most emailed sports news story according to Yahoo! news. The Associated Press story[3] appeared in many newspapers, including The New York Times and USA Today. As of August 25th, Vidro said he had no plans to resign and that his team will not disband.[4]

That's just piss poor writing: passive voice, non-sequiturs, informal language, etc. Not worthy of the usually high standards of Wiki (which is pretty impressive considering the open, collaborative, and volunteer nature of Wiki.)
 

ClairefromClare

Like my balls?
Jul 23, 2008
2,056
4
Yeah, it's all totally out of control and as the parent of a ten year old baseball player in the New York suburbs, I know all the players in this drama (a full cast in every town).

Tell you what detail I haven't seen in all this. At such a young age, kids are (or should be) seriously limited in how much pitching they do. Our league counts pitches, including warmups. A pitcher can only throw the ball X number of times before he's rotated out, and he can't pitch every game.

So yes, this kid's pitching is a big factor in his team's record. But it can't be the only one. Or it had better not be, or he won't have a rotator cuff by the time he hits middle school. Sour grapes indeed.
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,101
4
They mentioned what you said in reference to articles for which they footnoted in the reference section and for what was further quoted by the mother. Footnoting a source is not speculation on their part.

Again, I don't see how this even touches the realm of speculation in comparison to the article that you quoted. You don't consider stating the league administrators involvement in offer a position and that being an underlying cause as speculation.

To me this seemed completely unbiased in just quoting what was already reported by the AP, New York Times, and USA Today. They listed their sources accordingly and IMO offered no real opinion.

The only thing I drew attention to was the birthdate.

Seem like you expect a reference to offer an opinion, I disagree and fail to see where they did, even in what you quoted.
 
OP
Harry Longshanks

Harry Longshanks

bow-chicka-bow-wow
Jul 20, 2008
718
0
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #21
They mentioned what you said in reference to articles for which they footnoted in the reference section and for what was further quoted by the mother. Footnoting a source is not speculation on their part.

In a formal writing setting, a footnote to another article is not a substitute for presenting a complete picture of the reported event. Besides, the portion I cited as speculative contained no footnote.

Again, I don't see how this even touches the realm of speculation in comparison to the article that you quoted. You don't consider stating the league administrators involvement in offer a position and that being an underlying cause as speculation.

The AP article did not speculate, it reported statements by the parties.

"It may be that the League had ulterior motives" = speculation by the writer.

"Scott's mother claims the League has ulterior motives" = not speculation by the writer.

"Scott's mother may sue the League" = Speculation by the writer.

"Scott's mother stated that she has retained a lawyer and may sue the League" - not speculation by the writer.

It is not speculation by the author to present a statement by a third party, even if the underlying statement may be speculative in nature. Why, because the author may report events, but should not speculate him/herself without making it clear that the forthcoming statement is speculation and presenting a basis for the speculation (e.g., "Based on other cases of this nature, it is probable that Scott's mother will seek legal recourse in order to force the League to allow her son to play. In the Smith vs. Bob's Little League case, 8-year old Cindy Scott sued to force Bob's Little League to allow her to play after she was banned from playing in 1999 because the boys in the League didn't want to play against a girl.")

However, it is speculation by the author to simply make a conclusory statement with no stated source (e.g., "Scott's parents may sue.").

To me this seemed completely unbiased in just quoting what was already reported by the AP, New York Times, and USA Today. They listed their sources accordingly and IMO offered no real opinion.

Sin of omission.

The Wiki entry stated only one side on a central dispute in the case. That is not "unbiased". The fact that the Wiki article contained footnotes to other articles which may (or may not) present a different position is immaterial. The writer is obligated to present both sides of a dispute if the article is to be considered impartial.

For example, in a political environment, if I write an article lauding praise on a particular candidate and relate only the good things reported about that candidate even though I am aware of disputed facts (or I undertake willful ignorance), I may write good political propaganda, but few would agree that my article was unbiased.

The only thing I drew attention to was the birthdate.

No argument there. I was the one who unilaterally raised the issue of the substandard nature of the entry.

Seem like you expect a reference to offer an opinion, I disagree and fail to see where they did, even in what you quoted.

I'm not sure what you mean.
 

TheWOAT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2006
535
0
On my Co-Ed softball team, most of us have average arms and probably throw 40-45 mph max (somewhat verified by a trip by some of us to a carnival booth, we all threw in that range)... Thats some serious heat for kids, especially off of a mound.
 
OP
Harry Longshanks

Harry Longshanks

bow-chicka-bow-wow
Jul 20, 2008
718
0
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #23
On my Co-Ed softball team, most of us have average arms and probably throw 40-45 mph max (somewhat verified by a trip by some of us to a carnival booth, we all threw in that range)... Thats some serious heat for kids, especially off of a mound.

No doubt. How does a an 8-year old even learn to throw that hard/fast?

I'm curious about the backstory. If this kid doesn't mutilate his body, he could have some serious potential.
 

FlopShotArtist

< Yeah, I'd hit it.
Jul 24, 2008
70
0
Not bragging about my brother, but when he 9, he threw around 44-45 mph...He's now 12 and throws about 60. I threw about 40 around that age aswell. I'm 15 and only throw about 64-65 now though, due to elbow tendinitis.

40mph isn't that fast - I'm a bit puzzled here.
 

Bakemono36

New Member
Aug 24, 2008
455
0
Id definetly agree that its not so much a matter that the kid is too good, its that he didnt play for the right person's team and that person is using his/her authroity to get even with the kid and his parents.
 

Wi-Golfer

Golfer on hiatus.
Supporting Member
Jul 25, 2007
8,147
1,474
Madison, Wi
Country
United States United States
On my Co-Ed softball team, most of us have average arms and probably throw 40-45 mph max (somewhat verified by a trip by some of us to a carnival booth, we all threw in that range)... Thats some serious heat for kids, especially off of a mound.

Few years ago my wife & I attended the Wi State Fair & they had one of those radar booths. My wife threw at 44 mph & I was able to beat her but not by much with a blistering 48mph.

Really gave me a new perspective on just how fast a 100+ mph pitch is.
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,101
4
In a formal writing setting, a footnote to another article is not a substitute for presenting a complete picture of the reported event. Besides, the portion I cited as speculative contained no footnote.
I think that was a big part of my initial comment. I think there is a complete lack of "A complete picture" on this topic as it is simply too new and there is not enough information available. As I stated prior to even mentioning the Wiki article, it appears we are not getting all the facts but more simply opinion. I guess their option is to state what they know to be fact, or simply state nothing. I personally like the idea of what seems like an unbiased opinion of what is otherwise sketchy facts over opinion of what may or may not be fact anyday. Particularly in our media farce that we have nowadays where everyone wants their opinion to be viewed as fact without even stating sources.

I still don't see how you are speculating by stating what you read and citing the source. I still would value it over the one you quoted, where to me it seemed as the all too common outcry for public opinion. I guess I just don't see how you can criticize Wiki, yet still use your article as a bases for the people on here to form an accurate opinion. From an unbiased opinion that sees both sides to this, I view Wiki as far less speculative in allowing their readers to form an accurate or unbiased opinion.

Again, how can you ask us to have any opinion about what you yourself quoted in an article that was riddled with speculation. Why did they even mention it if they did not have all the facts. For that matter, why did you? Are you any less guilty of what you have accused Wiki of being?
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,101
4
The AP article did not speculate, it reported statements by the parties.

"It may be that the League had ulterior motives" = speculation by the writer.

"Scott's mother claims the League has ulterior motives" = not speculation by the writer.

"Scott's mother may sue the League" = Speculation by the writer.

"Scott's mother stated that she has retained a lawyer and may sue the League" - not speculation by the writer.

It is not speculation by the author to present a statement by a third party, even if the underlying statement may be speculative in nature. Why, because the author may report events, but should not speculate him/herself without making it clear that the forthcoming statement is speculation and presenting a basis for the speculation (e.g., "Based on other cases of this nature, it is probable that Scott's mother will seek legal recourse in order to force the League to allow her son to play. In the Smith vs. Bob's Little League case, 8-year old Cindy Scott sued to force Bob's Little League to allow her to play after she was banned from playing in 1999 because the boys in the League didn't want to play against a girl.")

However, it is speculation by the author to simply make a conclusory statement with no stated source (e.g., "Scott's parents may sue.").
See, now you are forming an opinion of Wiki on the sources cited. They did not quote this information from the AP in their statement, but simply linked the article.

You want to hold that against Wiki, go right ahead. But saying they are guilty of speculation by simply citing some of the more renowned media that may have speculated in their article is ridiculous.

The Wiki entry stated only one side on a central dispute in the case. That is not "unbiased".
I'm still not clear from reading the Wiki article which "Side" you feel they stated. To me it seemed like the same "Side" you quoted in your article. Further, you act as though this was a ploy on my part to support some argument I had. It wasn't. You ignored my major beef, which was mentioned and verified by the mother. Why the heck did she call the police, this was a major question I had in reference to her credibility? Seems like they have better thing to do with their time.

You stated yourself above, and for what I even drew reference to the article for in relation the the birthdate.
No argument there. I was the one who unilaterally raised the issue of the substandard nature of the entry.
The only reason I even linked the article. Reread my initial comment.
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,101
4
It sounds to me like someone (a league administrator) is pissed because the kid wouldn't play for his (employer's) team. Hmmmm, the kid was invited to play for another team before the season started. That tells me that the league knew how good he was. If he was such a "safety concern", why didn't the League try to move him up to an older age bracket before the season started? It also tells me that the "defending champs" were probably already pulling some strings to get the better players, and now those parents are pissed because their kids are losing.

What do you suppose the odds are that the League would be trying to ban him if he had accepted the invitation to play for the defending champs?

Sour.Grapes.
You want speculation. A legitimate question. Why didn't he play for them? Not as much money to mom, mom wouldn't sleep with the league administrator, dad worked for the other team, Dad had a torrid affair with the administrators wife, administrator flunked kid back in 1st grade, kid wouldn't push drugs for administrator, administrator wouldn't push steroids for kid. Why did they bring up the soap opera without supporting facts? Yet you didn't hold it against them but instead formed your opinion around this part.
 

Latest posts

Top