Over the years I have always been intrigued on how LL, TB and HS coaches based there decisions on who played and who sat. The past few months reading posts on HSBBW,it has become apparent the consensus is talent will trump, skill, desire, etc... Is true talent measured on the practice field or playing the game? The kid who "just looks like a baseball player" who crushes the ball during bp but cannot hit his weight during games usually gets the long look over the kid who hits "lucky" singles for a 350 ba. Every opportunity is extended with the hope "the player" will come around. Does this translate to 25, 50 maybe a 100 ab's before a change is made. This same bias is extended to fielding a position (how's he going to get better without the reps) to a lesser extent. And conversely, not at all to pitching. Especially if the team is deep in pitching, a bad outing pretty much seals your fate. Again this is something I have noticed at the HS level and below.
Five tools has pretty much been the standard for describing a talented ball player. The more tools you had the more talented /value you were to a team, netting opportunities. These are tangible assets. Are intangible assets also assessed? To me five intangible tools would be.
1. Execution
2. Competitiveness.
3. Guile.
4. Resolve.
5. Work ethic.
Most players beyond HS have these qualities and many more are needed to succeed in college and at the pro level. Although names like Rubin Rivera come to mind who was afforded many opportunities in the pro's due to his legit five tangible tools and was run out of MLB only after he stole Derek Jeter's glove.
"Good pitching will beat good hitting and vice versa" Bob Veale
Original Post
