cabbagedad posted: And..... he has completely derailed yet another thread. Perhaps an apology to the OP is in order.
For the record, Stats, you said...
"I don’t mind talent being how decisions are made, as long as talent is defined. If it can’t be defined it can’t be measured, and if can’t be measured how can it be used to make valid decisions?"
If that doesn't mean you're looking for clear definition, I don't know what does. But, I know that you will argue that black and white is gray, so...
Why is it that I’m the only one who didn’t stay precisely on thread that you say I’m the one derailing it?
The definition doesn’t need to be “clear” to be understood! Saying “talent” is how playing time decisions should be made is just looking for trouble unless the person making the decision has the stones to explain to people how the judgment will be made. There has to be some basis for putting one kid on the bench and another on the field.
I’ve seen plenty of players over the years who have tremendous talent but can’t translate it to performance on the field. Likewise, I’ve seen plenty of players who don’t have much talent be able to somehow have great success on the field. Perhaps at your school you have the luxury of ignoring performance and simply putting the players you feel are the most talented, but at the schools I’ve been associated with that’s seldom possible. Many times the coach will go with whoever’s got the “hot hand” or been contributing the most and the talented kid will find himself on the bench.
It isn’t 1930 anymore where the coach can say it’s my way or the highway and everyone bows his head in subservience! Somewhere along the line standards have to be communicated in such a way that the in such a way that they’re understood, or there will be problems.
How would you justify putting a kid at say short, who makes many physical and mental errors, and keeping him there when there are other players who’ve proven they perform better? Would you simply say the player I put there has more talent? Good luck if you do.
Management thinker Peter Drucker is often quoted as saying that "you can't manage what you can't measure." Drucker means that you can't know whether or not you are successful unless success is defined and tracked.