Nature vs. Nurture

Nice one 2019.  Sadly I think nature is tough to beat. This viewpoint of course does not enhance my sons chances!  But on the upside I do believe since baseball is a skill game there is a lot you can do to outwork the naturally gifted and at least compete. There are some so naturally talented you will just never catch them period. Then there is the natural born who also work hard. They are way out in front. But I believe that segment to represent a relatively small percentage of players. So ther is still room for the kid who works relentlessly to make himself better. Guess it depends on your goals. If you want to be top ten in the nation or something...  Better have the genes and I mean big time genes cause otherwise it ain't happening no matter how hard you work. If you want to be D1 you need decent genes and a great work habit. Lower level college passable genes and a love for the game. Remember most of us are used to playing with and against the best out there. There are bajillions of kids out there on league teams that simply do not have the genes to play any level of college and maybe not even high school. So to sum up my thoughts (more than you were looking for I am sure). I do think it's mostly nature but you can bump yourself up a station or two through dedication and hard work. 

I believe you get the best player when you nurture the nature. Genetically having a family with an athletic background is a great start. But then the kid has to want it. As a preteen dad can nuture the talent. As a teen the player's desire to develop takes over.

Sometimes I'll hear a parent say they weren't an athlete. But could they have been? Are others in the family gene pool good athletes? 

A players "ceiling" is mostly based on nature.

Reaching that ceiling requires nurturing.

Not many ever find out what their ceiling is because not many are willing to do what it takes to find out.  So in the end some of the best based on nature fall behind some that have out worked them.

I can see this thread going for a while......

You decide - nature vs. nurture.   Mom is 5'2" (she claims 5'3) and very small framed, always has been.  Never played a sport in her life but has always been physically fit.  Dad is 6' and really should lose some weight ('nuff said).  Dad played in high school and was a marginal player at very, very best.  Grandfather played at a small college in the 60's and I'm told was a decent pitcher in his day.  Two boys.  Both 6'3" and a pound or two either side of 215 lbs.  One pitches in D1, the other headed to pitch D3 in the fall.  One was 93 mph (on a PG gun) in high school, touched 96 as a Freshman in college this year.  Second is about 10 - 12 mph less but gaining.  Feels like a lot of nurture and not much nature, but who knows for sure.

9AND7DAD,

As odd as it might seem, don't be surprised if the younger son still makes a big jump at some point.  We have seen pitchers that topped out mid 80s in HS reach mid 90s by the time they are juniors in college.

If I were a DI coach, I would be interested in the younger brother just based on what his older brother has done.  Obviously not a sure thing, but enough to get me interested.

If you are truly interested in going deep on this topic I suggest you read "The Sports Gene," by David Epstein. Very interesting, well researched study on this.

2019Dad posted:

Applying it to baseball, what's your view? Does nature or nurture have the predominant impact?

Interested in hearing the responses; I'll provide my viewpoint in a bit.

Depends on position.  For a pitcher I don't think there is any question it is nature, can that ligament take 95 mph or will it blow?

For position players there could be a real argument about nurture.  You can take the most athletic kid in a high school to a baseball tryout, but if he doesn't know how to track a ball, doesn't know how to catch while running, hasn't seen the game played for years and the millions of split second decisions that must be made on the field...he's not going to do well.  He could be trained up eventually but I'd have to say that is still nurture.

I wrote a similar statement here once before, but it's something like this.... Nature vs. Nurture is an interesting debate, until your second child is born. Then you realize some things are just ingrained. One child is athletic, the other is not. One is an average student, one is a great student. One is quiet and reserved, the other is outgoing and talkative. And as much as you think you can influence or change some things, you eventually realize that some traits are just hardwired.

I know some brothers who are both baseball players. One is 6'3", has the gift, throws 90+ and was over 6' and throwing 80 coming out of 8th grade, and has a ton of potential. The other is 5'8", was always the other's catcher and has limited baseball potential. One played on top travel squads, the other played on local squads. The gifted one had little drive and may have blown his gift with poor decisions. The smaller one has pushed to become an excellent high school player with drive, and leadership potential.

PGStaff posted:

9AND7DAD,

As odd as it might seem, don't be surprised if the younger son still makes a big jump at some point.  We have seen pitchers that topped out mid 80s in HS reach mid 90s by the time they are juniors in college.

If I were a DI coach, I would be interested in the younger brother just based on what his older brother has done.  Obviously not a sure thing, but enough to get me interested.

I hope you're right on the velo jump PG, and I think little brother hopes so too!  I agree with your assessment regarding generating a little more recruiting interest based on older brother, but it really didn't seem to work that way for him.  He's going to a traditionally competitive D3 that I think is a good academic fit for him, so we are cautiously optimistic it will all work out for him.

I've read The Sports Gene -- a very interesting book. And to Stafford's point, I have four kids, and I agree that it changed my perspective on nature vs. nurture.

However, like a lot of things in life, I don't think the answer is that black and white. You ever hear the saying "Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard"? Well, what about when talent does work hard -- who wins then?  Sure, you'd bet on talent.

So my view is it's 70% genetic and 30% nurture -- or 80-20 or something like that. But that 30% or 20% can make all the difference. Or maybe the way PGStaff put it -- ceiling and reaching the ceiling -- is the right way to think about it. 

Not to get too philosophical about it, but you don't get a chance to run a double-blind experiment in life. What happens, happens, and you can't really know what would have happened if another path were taken. This topic was sparked in my mind recently given a couple of exchanges on this site:

• One concerned Steph Curry and the fact that he dedicated himself to basketball (the dreaded single-sport athlete!) from age 13 on. A poster made the very fair point that you can't really attribute Curry's recent improvement to his teenage years. I get that. But he was so lightly recruited out of high school -- I think Davidson and Winthrop were his only scholarship offers -- that maybe he wouldn't have been recruited anywhere if he hadn't dedicated himself solely to basketball. And then where would he be?
• The other was in reference to an old-timer poster whose son was "obsessed with velocity" and he ended up pitching in the Big 12 and then a few years in the minors. Another poster described him as a soft tosser who struggled to break 90. The implication being: what did all that obsession with velocity get him? But I thought, heck, maybe without that obsession he would have struggled to break 80 . . .

I heard Trevor Bauer's dad say that the first 80 mph for his son was natural talent, and that Trevor made the other 20 mph through sheer effort. For some other kid, it may be his natural talent allows him to throw 95 . . .

So I buy the idea of natural talent -- a gift -- but I love the idea of a kid fighting, scratching, clawing, obsessing, in an attempt to make the most of his talent.

I often find in the pro nature argument the "potential" bar is still fairly high. Pete Rose called himself an average athlete. He may have been average compared to elite athletes. But he was all state in baseball and football in high school. 

PGStaff posted:

A players "ceiling" is mostly based on nature.

Reaching that ceiling requires nurturing.

Not many ever find out what their ceiling is because not many are willing to do what it takes to find out.  So in the end some of the best based on nature fall behind some that have out worked them.

^^^^^^This^^^^^^^  

Going back to the initial question, I would say Nurture has the primary impact but with Nature providing the "ceiling" as previously mentioned by PGStaff.

Very complex to pull this one apart as there are just so many factors. I can tell you that the vast majority, if not ALL, of your highly successful players have been "Nurtured" over the years by coaches, family etc to achieve their level of success. They have put in the countless hours & done the things that few others are willing to do. This is the primary difference maker. There are also the freaks of nature who just defy this model & can thrive on talent & even these need Nurturing to succeed at Baseball.

There must also be a baseline genetic structure to work from to excel vs others. I have no idea what that is but it is obvious that some folks have athletic gifts while others have gifts in different areas.

The difference at the top is almost all Mental and a matter of consistency as the talent becomes virtually a wash ( everyone is a stud) with a few freak exceptions.