Phoenix.BloggersPub

Little League, Big Dreams
Charles Euchner,
pp.304, $22.95, Sourcebooks Inc.

Charles Euchner’s previous book, The Last Nine Innings struck an immediate chord with me, since it dealt with the 2001 World Series, in which our beloved Diamondbacks beat the hated Yankees in the most dramatic fashion impossible. His latest offering, Little League, Big Dreams, about the Little League World Series (LLWS), doesn’t have such resonance. This is, I should quickly point out, in no way the author’s fault - in the Scottish town where I grew up, there was no Little League. The peak of sporting excellence for twelve-year olds was the summer soccer league: that, however, received no coverage outside a few column inches in the local paper.

Hence, the American obsession with “junior sports” remains a matter of total bemusement to me. The nation grinds to a halt every March for the NCAA basketball tournament, while Division 1-A college football games attracted an average crowd of over 46,000 per game last year (15,000 more than major-league baseball). But perhaps the weirdest example of this phenomena, to my eyes, is the LLWS, which takes place every summer in Williamsport. It’s twelve-year old kids, playing ball - yet the pool games are a staple of ESPN, while the US and World Championship contests get national, network TV coverage. An Arizona team, from Ahwatukee, made it their this year; you could have wallpapered your house with the press coverage. Though they didn’t make it out of pool play, were still feted on their return and presented at a D’backs game (even if the town name was mis-spelled as “Ahwahtukee” on the JumboTron!).

It’s all very strange - and remains that way, after reading the book. For while Euchner does a good job of revealing the ferocious effort necessary to reach Williamsport, I’m still perplexed on a number of levels. For example, the LLWS is far from being the “best” baseball in its age bracket - this is an inevitable result of the relatively small catchment area, from which teams can draw. “Travel teams”, which pull players from a far wider area, are universtally regarded as being a much higher standard of play, but their tournaments do not receive anything like the same level of coverage. Even the tournaments run for other age groups by Little League, like Senior League Baseball are all but ignored. It seems that the LLWS has, after 60 years, become an icon of Americana, and is covered as such even though - as anyone who has watched a game will admit - the play is often a bit crap.

The other question which remains in my mind is, how much fun is it really for the kids? Certainly, it doesn’t seem like the rigorous training, punishing schedule, risk of (and actual) injury, and the fact that 99.9% of teams end up as losers, would make a good time. But it’s hard to tell from the book, because it concentrates almost entirely on the World Series, which the vast majority of players never reach. From my perspective, as someone to whom this is all entirely alien, it would have been interesting to take a look at Little League from the bottom to the top. I’m curious to see how whether the issues Euchner depicts are prevalent throughout the system, or only at the highest levels.

I appreciate, however, it would probably be very hard to get an honest answer from the players, as to how much they’re enjoying it, or what say they have in their participation. Wisely, Euchner talks more to the parents and coaches, who certainly seem like the driving forces, to an almost creepy degree. It’s as if their kids’ success becomes their success; perhaps the closest parallel I can come up with, is the parents who push their pre-teen daughters into beauty pageants. It’s not how I would raise my kids, and I’m not certain it’s the best way to raise rounded adults, especually when, as it appears here, you’re prepared to sacrifice their well-being for “your” victory.

The book is probably at its most fascinating when it covers aspects off the beaten track, such as the Russian team’s background and involvement. Sure, they lost every game, but their coach was the only one who refused to let his pitchers throw curveballs, which can cause permanent damage to developing arms. I have much greater respect for him, than those coaches who push their players to the limits of their unformed bodies, and beyond. There’s a telling quote from one coach: “Someone needs to speak out for these young athletes. They are being abused and everyone who has ever coached an all-star team is guilty because the rules allow it.” And here’s another one, from author and former NBA player, Bob Bigelow: “The child’s need to play is trumped by the adult’s need to win.” Er, your attention, please: It’s only a freakin’ game, folks.

Euchner makes it plain what his opinion is: Little League is a great idea, spoiled by the adults. They forge documentation (see the Danny Almonte affair); they force their pitchers to throw the curveball; and it’s they who harangue the umpires and opposing coaches when results don’t go their way. [We had an unpleasant demonstration of this from the Ahwatukee parents, who accused an opposing team of losing deliberately, thereby eliminating the AZ team] The book presents damning indictments of all these, and I’m thoroughly convinced by its case. In his final chapter, Euchner suggests that the best way forward may be to return the game to the kids, and let them have more of a say, rather than being little more than ball-playing robots. That sounds a great deal more like my kind of game.

While I can certainly appreciate the effort, which is both massive and, iceberg-like, mostly beneath the surface, I can’t help feeling it’s somewhat misdirected. If all the time, energy and money devoted to Little League was spent on social projects, it could make America a much better place. Though, I admit, you could probably say the same about almost any other large-scale activity, and despite my qualms, I suspect that the vast majority of parents approach Little League with a more benign, laid-back attitude than those who reach the World Series.

Certainly, Euchner’s book is a useful part of the discussion on Little League’s position as we enter the third millennium, and is recommended for anyone who played, coached or parented Little League. Even I, who falls into “d) None of the above,” certainly learned a lot about the organization (as well as the Hawaiian fondness for Spam!) - though I can’t honestly say that my opinion of it has been improved by what I know. The next time I watch the LLWS, I’ll be doing so with a more informed, but perhaps slightly jaundiced eye. It will certainly no longer be merely a bunch of kids playing ball.

[You can visit the publisher’s site for more information on the book]

We have added yet another blog to BloggersPub Phoenix. We welcome Kevin and Royce from So Much Silence!
More additions to come. We hope.

We welcome Rob Manderson from Ultramaroon rises again to our digital pub. Enjoy reading the life of Rob.

Record: 64-69. Change on last season: +3

There’s something sweetly illicit about a day-game: even if you shouldn’t be at work, it still feels like you’re playing truant for the afternoon. In the absence of Mrs. SnakePit, I was joined by Pete, who’d finished work for the day at 2:30pm, and so headed over to Chase Field to make use of the spare ticket. [He didn’t glaze over in quite the same way as Chris does when I start ranting about baseball, but she will remain the default, by virtue of being cute. ]

It was, however, another disappointing performance from the Diamondbacks. While the Padres didn’t have more than a two-run lead until the 9th inning, it never really felt like it was within Arizona’s power to come back. Even after we put the first two men on base in the sixth inning, there was a certain inevitability about our subsequent failure to bring the runners home. Hell, even advancing the runners would have been nice. We had just one hit through four innings - that, an infield squibber by Drew, placed with such perfection as if he’d bunted it, which led to our only run - but we did have men aboard in seven of the nine innings. It’s just that whenever we hit the ball, it inevitably came within reach of a Padre.

Vargas didn’t pitch all that badly, and suffered the reverse fate, with an eerie number of bloops and seeing-eye singles. It certainly didn’t help that Dave Roberts - the man you most want to keep off the basepaths - was 4-for-5 with two stolen bases. Our starter seemed to have problems putting both hitters and innings away: I lost count of the number of times Vargas would get ahead 0-1 or even 0-2, only to end up allowing a hit or walking the guy. Each of the three runs he allowed came with two outs in the innings; so did four of the six hits, and all three walks.

By the end, he was clearly running on fumes - Pete spotted it a few pitches before I did, but it rapidly became obvious to all. Getting through that fifth inning was a major effort, even if he did strike out the side (albeit round two hits, a walk and a run), and Vargas’s reaction when he got the final out was clearly one of “thank God that’s over”. I think the last hitter he faced would probably have been the last hitter he faced, regardless of the result. It fell fractionally short of the quality start, but three runs over five innings could have got him the win, if our offense had been any less impotent.

After he departed, the bullpen was left to fend for itself over the final four innings. [They, probably more than anyone else, must be eagerly anticipating the arrival of reinforcements on September 1st] Medders gave us two solid innings and Vizcaino pitched a perfect eighth, though Lyon gave up a ninth-inning run, albeit of no real significance. And duly, Hoffman came in, with a three-run lead and demolished the hitters in brutal fashion, though Estrada somehow managed to muscle the ball out of the infield.

There was precious little other muscling going on, however, with no extra-base hits for Arizon. Apart from the sixth, our best chance was perhaps in the first when Chris Young walked, then stole second with a jump of such audacity I’m sure he arrived at his destination before the ball reached the plate. However, as in the sixth, that’s exactly where he stayed. Even the run we did score was manufactured in the most cheapskate fashion, without the ball leaving the infield: Drew’s squibber, a bunt by Vargas, a wild pitch and a groundout.

Young batted leadoff, and was the only player to reach safely twice, on a hit and our only walk. He also drove in the only Diamondbacks run, stole the sole base, and had the best defensive play of the game, a grab right up against the wall in deep left-center to rob Adrian Gonzalez of an extra-base hit in the third. He will, naturally, be back on the bench tomorrow. But I think it’s safe to say that, on this performance, we have a credible contender to occupy the top of the order for 2007.

Game Notes

• So much for the much-vaunted new PA. Sounded the same as the old PA to me, occasionally a good bit worse. I still have no idea what job Tony Clark would do if he wasn’t a baseball player, as the audio to go with that clip was muffled + inaudible.

• We were sitting in the Poore Brothers section. As a result, after the “ball under the hat game”, stadium workers ran up and down the aisles lobbing bag of chips at us. It was like being the victim of a drive-by snacking…

• Luis Gonzalez came to the plate to the Jimmy Buffett tune, Cheeseburger in Paradise. Snarkier visitors may permit themselves a snort of derision at this.

• The statistical obsessive in me applauds the way in which Vargas ordered his outs. He started with ten straight air-outs (eight outfield flies, a foul-out to third and a pop-up), then two ground-balls, and finished by striking out the side in the fifth.

• Pete has a theory that whatever hot-dog is in last place rounding second base, will always win the relish race. On today’s evidence (relish), it seems to work, but more investigation is, I think, required.

• When Lyon came in, they put a picture of a lion on the Jumbotron, and play the sound of a lion roaring. Never one to miss the obvious, are they? Actually, good job they had the picture, or I’d have thought it was the sound of a toilet flushing. [See point one, above]

• Trevor Hoffman in action was scary. Tracy and Clark, in particular, were not “near miss” swings. They were “barely the same zip-code” strikes. The gulf between someone like Hoffman and, say, Jorge Julio, was painfully apparent.

Thanks to VIII and jazzbo13 for their terse - but undeniably heartfelt - comments on the game. I suspect that no-one saw it, so maybe we can just pretend it didn’t happen? There were only 20,233 in attendance at Chase Field - before this year, I think that would have been a franchise-record low, but now it wouldn’t even make the top ten [for example, every game during the two May series against the Padres and Pirates saw smaller crowds]. With 14 games to go, the Diamondbacks are ranked 25th in attendance, at 25,077. That puts them on target for 2.03 million, only about 1.4% down on last year. And that’d still be 100,000+ more than the AL West leaders, Oakland, are on pace for this season.

The homestand finishes 2-4, as we get beaten by two teams ahead of us in the NL West. The team is still saying the right things: “We’ve got to win these games, so we’re going to have to go on a stretch and play really well on the road,” according to Eric Byrnes. But we won exactly one series this month (7th-9th, vs. the Giants), so it’s not as if this is a temporary glitch, or just a road-bump. No, we finish August at 10-18, and if we do that next month, we’ll end up with a worse record than 2005. I’m hoping we can avoid that: ideally, while I’d like to see us reach the .500 mark, that would need us to go 17-12 over September. I don’t have much hope of such a performance right now…

Off-day tomorrow, so Heroes and Zeroes for the series will follow there, and perhaps a book review as well. Though if I’m going to do that, I’d better get my ass in gear and finish off said book! Got a good chunk done today, before the baseball game, but still have 30-odd pages to go. It’s a lot harder to find time to read, now that I don’t have a formal lunch-break any longer…

Another night out with the lads; Vern, Monty and Guy. This one was planned to either celebrate or commiserate depending on the outcome of my naturalisation interview. I suspect that for the US Citizens present (Vern and Monty) it was both!

I note that Randy at the office, upon hearing I’d been approved, said ‘proof they’ll take anyone’. I riposted with ‘well, they saw the home grown product and realised they needed to lift their game!’.

I enjoyed the evening immensely. I wasn’t the designated driver this time around! That honour fell to Guy who’s on the wagon.

In the past I’ve dined at home with Sonya and Andrew before setting out but this evening I decided I’d eat at the pub. So we called for menus. I decided I wanted ribs but was unable to decide between the full rack and the half rack. So, when the waitress returned to take our order I asked, in all innocence ‘How big is the rack?’. Of course I realised what I’d said about the time I hit that final ‘k’. Out of the corner of my eye I could see Vern struggling mightily to suppress a mighty laugh! I think he did well!

Of course she, the waitress, didn’t miss the double entendre; she flirted with us for the rest of the evening! It’s most flattering to a 50 something bloke to have a waitress in her early 20’s flirting! I think the 40 somethings enjoyed it too!!!

Fuelled by the third (or was it the fourth?) beer, conversation turned to a contest; who could come up with the biggest dilemma? With whom would we rather have sex? Sandra Bullock or Kirsten Dunst? And so on. Many many names, most of which I didn’t recognise. And when I suggested names I got the analogous blank stares. Who on earth is Ruby Keeler[^]?

It went downhill from there!

An evening out with the lads that I thoroughly enjoyed!

Yup, I passed the naturalisation interview.

I started out nervous. I reckon just finding the correct room at the supplied address, Room 1, 3110 North Central Avenue, is the first part of the test! That address just happens to be a collection of low buildings surrounded by an enormous car park and it’s not at all obvious where Room 1 might be. Eventually I found, around the side and a *long* way from the front of the building, a doorway marked ‘United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Interview Center (sic)’ and through that door an elevator. The elevator led to room 250. Could have been worse; it might have been room 101!

Through security; they checked that my cigarette pack contained cigarettes! Then a not so long wait for the time to come. I’d arrived about 20 minutes ahead of time and it started 5 minutes past time.

First thing he did after introducing himself was swear me in. I’d been wondering if that was done on a bible because if so I’d have to ask for an affirmation[^] and I wasn’t really sure how well that’d go down. Thinking about it later it was of course obvious that they really can’t do a bible oath. What if the applicant is a Hindu? A Zoroastrian?

Then came the confirmation, out of my mouth, on oath, of everything I’d put in the application. The application is about fourteen pages long so it’s a lot of questions. The answer to most of those questions should be no. No, I have not been a member of the communist party. No, I have not been arrested for drunk driving. You have no idea how silly it feels to repeat no 40 times…

And then, suddenly, the expected answer changes to yes. Do you support the constitution and form of government of the United States. Don’t let the 40 nos before that trip you up!

So we get to the end of that and it’s time for the English and civics tests. This is going to sound sarcastic and, to a certain extent, I think the sarcasm is deserved. On the other hand, at least the US does make an effort, no matter how token, to test that it’s prospective citizens have a grasp of English.

First came the English reading test. You have to understand that he’s running some kind of software on a screen out of my view; hints he dropped indicate that the tests are randomised. So he hits a button and the printer whirrs and out comes a sheet of paper with a sentence, in English, on it. He hands me the paper and asks me to read it out loud.

‘He wanted to talk with his boss.’

So I read it out and he (the interviewer) then asks me what it means. *shrug* how much critical analysis can one apply to such a sentence?

‘He wanted to talk to his boss’ I said.

Tick! Passed the English reading test. Time for the English writing test. The printer whirrs again and out comes another page. This time he folds it in half so I can’t see or copy the sentence. He dictates it to me and I write it down.

‘He had a very big dog!’

Yeah, I stuck the exclamation point on the sentence when I wrote it down. Methinks the original ending was a full stop (period). He looks at what I wrote and comments that I’ve spelled it correctly. Tick! Passed the English writing test.

Now it’s time for the civics test. Here, in the order, as best I remember it, are the 10 randomly generated questions.

What is Congress?
What colour are the stars on the flag?
What colour are the stripes on the flag?
What colours are used on the flag?
Name three rights guaranteed by the bill of rights?
Why did the Pilgrims come to America?
What do the stars on the flag represent?
What is the highest court in the land?
Who was President during the civil war?

Dammit, I can’t remember the tenth question but it was equally easy. Got 10 out of 10! I commented ruefully that I hadn’t been asked what the first 13 colonies were. He admitted that he hated it when that question came up; he could never remember if Maine was one. I told him it wasn’t

After that was a wait of a couple of minutes while he went through my case file (a file that’s about 2 inches thick, I kid you not!). When he got to the list of my marriages he commented ‘You’ve been married three times?’ with a tone of voice that seemed to imply that he felt three was quite enough. I couldn’t resist; ‘Check my wifes marriages!’. He did. ‘Wow, four?’. lol

All was satisfactory and he approved me. We shook hands and he complimented me on the completeness of my application. Apparently most applicants don’t follow instructions and supply everything they want; tax records from IRS, proof of joint finances, marriage and divorce certificates. WTF? The forms are very clear on those points.

I went outside and enjoyed the most wonderful cigarette!

I’m ashamed to admit that for as long as I’ve lived in Phoenix – or at least for as long as I’ve been attending shows – I’ve yet to see Reubens Accomplice, one of our local scene’s best bands.
The band’s principal members are Chris Corak and J…

Today I planned on finishing the final draft of my last Japan trip, but instead I’m installing a new kitchen sink and garbage disposal.

Mike Thompson, RHP (3-5, 5.07)

Claudio Vargas, RHP (10-8, 5.14)

Getting this one up early, since I have to drop Mrs. SnakePit off to her training class, and then head for the game. Don’t think it’s on TV here, so this will be the only way to see it. Though from recent comments by andrewinnewyork, it may or may not be available elsewhere - the rules on that seem obscure at best. Odd start time, too: 3.40pm? But seems to be the same for some other home day games the rest of the way. It’ll be weird, not having my wife’s sardonic comments beside me at the park, but I’ll cope…somehow.

I’m anticipating this being a high-scoring game, but given my track record in predictions this week, that will probably mean both starters taking no-hitters into the ninth inning. At least we don’t have to deal with a 6′10″ monster on the mound for the Padres today, though Thompson has been effective enough in most of his starts [he did get lit up last time out, in Coors Field…which is an achievement, these days] Vargas has been…Vargas. May be something good, may be something bad, but probably tending towards the latter. No time to do a full list of things I want to see today here, but I’ll settle for a quality start from him.

Record: 64-68. Change on last season: +4

The game last night honoured the Ahwatukee Little League All-Stars, who reached their World Series, before being unlucky to go out, despite winning two of their three games. On the evidence of this performance, however, we might have been better off if they had played for us, and we’d treated the Diamondbacks roster to hot-dogs and ice-cream instead.

Yeah, a cheap shot, I know. But here are the statistics that matter: twelve strikeouts, no walks. That’s a Little League performance right there, as Chris Young extended his amazing streak on the road to twenty-one games without a defeat, the longest since Greg Maddux went 22 straight in 1997-98. Said Conor Jackson, “It’s like Shaq out there. He’s a pretty tall guy and he’s got a weird arm angle. He’s only throwing 88 or 90 but it looks like about 95, 96.” Orlando Hudson agreed: “That 90 mph fastball is a lot harder, coming from a big downhill angle… He mixed it up tonight and keeping that fastball chest-high makes it kinda hard to lay off of.”

Particular culprits on the strikeout front were Byrnes, who last night, took to his new role in the cleanup spot like…well, all the other people we’ve tried this year, and Tracy, both of whom fanned three times. The latter had been good lately, going K-less in five of the previous six games, but maybe Chad was swinging for the fences, trying to erase the possibility of the Tracy HR Watch. Didn’t work if so. It’s now 107 at-bats since he homered, though much like in Gonzo’s streak, he’s not hitting badly: he’s at .290 (31-for-107) since he last trotted around the bags on July 31st.

As well as going walkless, we only managed six hits, so not much success for us at the plate - unless you count Carlos Quentin getting hit by a pitch for the fifth time. That ties him with Chad Tracy and Eric Byrnes, each of whom have at least five times as many at-bats as Q. He did go 0-for-2 with 2 K’s when hitting the ball, however. Otherwise, Young had a pinch-hit double (time for the Free Chris Young campaign to start?), and Hudson had two knocks, including his 13th homer of the year. Revisiting an earlier chart, O-Dawg’s .818 OPS is now fourth among qualifying second basemen (400+ PAs). Since the All-Star break, his figure of .958 trails just Ray Durham (min. 100 PAs). He also has 8 triples already, a figure beaten only by Steve Finley (10 during 2003), since Tony Womack set the franchise record of 14 back in 2000.

Well, at least EnGon didn’t give up any runs in the first inning. The second, third and fifth innings, however? Not so lucky… He was pulled after five, allowing four runs on ten hits and a walk, with the Diamondbacks down by three, and ended up losing his fourth straight decision, dropping his record to 3-6 - he has only one win in thirteen starts since June 13. We pulled a run back in the sixth, but then Juan Cruz allowed three in the seventh to nail down the lid on this particular coffin. The sinking ship which is S.S. Tony Pena(rio) added one more in the eighth for good luck, though Vizcaino did pitch a scoreless ninth.

Thanks to andrewinnewyork, npineda, nihil67, DiamondbacksWIn, jazzbo13, Otacon and icecoldmo for their thoughts. The general perception seems to be that, yes, this is the end for us. DiamondbacksWIn points out that Florida have now won nine in a row - could this be another one of the Marlins’ patented wild-card charges? More power to them and their $15m payroll if so. San Diego now lead the pack, but with seven teams - still including AZ - within three games of them, it is still very much up for grabs. Just probably not by us.

Your daily dose of yummy Fangraphs goodness
[Click pic to see full version in new window]
Today: AZ loses the ability to walk

Seems David Wells might be traded from Boston. Any chance Arizona might be in the running? Er, no, despite ESPN trying to start rumors to the contrary. The story pretty much commits hara-kiri as far as the Diamondbacks are concerned, when it says, “Wells has talked about retiring at the end of this season.” There’s no way we would even be looking at a player for a month’s worth of games, even if it was one who, unlike Wells, hadn’t reneged on a handshake agreement to join us a few years back. The most likely destination seems to be a team that’s really desperate for a quick injection of pitching. I’m thinking Cardinals or Dodgers?

Some more news on Jeff Davanon, who appears amenable to coming back to Arizona next year, after his surgery, having enjoyed his time here: “I called this the nicest team in baseball. Everyone’s overly nice. I can’t say anything bad about my teammates this year. I’ve had a lot of fun.” The report also says his option for next year will be $1.25m: it suggests he’d be platooned with Byrnes in left, rather than center. This would presume there’s no room for Gonzo, of course… But with DaVanon a switch-hitter, he could see playing time at all three positions.