Good makeup?

Maybelline?

I would consider natural baseball instincts and the ability to "let things go" naturally as "makeup"

Ding Ding Ding!   You win Rob!  I knew someone would go in that direction.  

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

I have a theory about this.  I think I know what "good make-up" is supposed to mean; some sort of combination of guts, confidence, positive approach, aggressiveness, good teammate, cool under pressure, all around solid guy... All in relation to having a legit baseball skill set of one type or another.  Even though make-up is supposed to cover non-baseball attributes, guys who flat can't play aren't referred to as having good make-up... Even if they have good make-up.

 

So that's what it's supposed to refer to.  But what I think it often refers to in reality is simply whether or not a coach "likes" a player or not.  It's basicly just affinity... Comfort level.  And one step beyond this, I think coaches tend to "like" guys best who are like themselves.  Just human nature. If the coach is an old middle infielder type... He will tend to gravitate more towards the quick, acrobatic player type... Scrappy slap hitters.  I find, in my own experience and from watching my son's experience, that there are more of these guys coaching than maybe any other spot (vertically challenged, scrappy MIFs).  Soylent Grunt has had a lot of this type player as HCs and gets along with them fine.  But as a tall, lanky pitcher-outfielder type, he tends to click best with former pitchers as coaches.  There's always a significant difference in non-pitching PT opportunities and coach's attention in general with the former pitcher-turned-coach.  Second best connection for him is former catchers.  I think these guys would tend to see him as having "good make-up"... Whereas the former scrappy MIF coach will tend to like him best on the days he's pitching, and not as much the rest of the time.  Not that the MIF-Coach dislikes him, but just not the same level of player-coach connection.  Just a theory.

I think of it as a way to describe what a player is made of inside - if he's got the work ethic, life style habits, stick-to-itiveness, mental toughness and discipline to stick with the long grind of becoming a major league ball player.

Those things that have nothing to do with the players talent or ability to actually play the game. Is he responsible? Is he a team player? Does he get after it all the time? Regardless of the score or situation? Does he work hard? Is he a good team mate? Is he coachable? Does he handle criticism well? Character on and off the field, etc.

 

That guy from the Dodger's vs that guy from the Angels. Both extremely talented.

Rob that was an awesome  description of GOOD makeup but I actually prefer the more expensive like Clinique.

Coach May has got it right. Good makeup has little to do with the amount of talent one has. Think Puig vs Trout.

BTW the player who was chosen before Verlander in 2004 is now in jail.

I think it refers to those intangibles y'all have described.

 

I'm trying to think of a time when I've seen the label applied from a place of bias -- as SG has -- but whether it's HS ball or MLB ... that's just not what I see.

 

Some players just have it.

SG - I am sure that you can think of an example to align with that theory, but I can think of many, many counterexamples just being around our sons' teams.

 

Of course we all tend to "like" people who we see as being like ourselves (assuming we like ourself! ).  But I've seen coaches, scouts, teammates…talk about players with "good makeup" that aren't anything like the player they're talking about.  In fact, I've seen this over and over.

 

I think "good makeup" comes in different shapes and sizes.  It can be someone with a discernible "will to win" no matter the situation.  It can be a pitcher who wants the ball…just has to be in a game when its tied and the bases are juiced or the hitter who wants the game on the line when he comes up in the 9th.  Do you ever feel kinda bad for the guy who is gonna make the last out in the World Series?  Don't, because that guy most likely has "good makeup" and wants the chance to extend the World Series.

 

It can be the bench player or starter who will do whatever it takes to win the game.  To me, its something that can be described as, "you know it when you see it."  And when you see it and know it, its as obvious as the sun on a cloudless day.

Yes JB!  Exactly my thoughts of "good makeup" that you did a great job of putting into words.   

Yeah I didn't mean to make it sound like a big negative or like an absolute either.  I agree with all the assessments so far of what good make-up is... Work ethic, will to win, handling yourself properly off the field, etc.

 

What I was describing is just something that I've seen play out enough times over the past 30 years to feel that there is some validity to it.  For one thing, and for whatever reasons, you see a lot fewer head coaches who are former pitchers as compared with other baseball backgrounds.  My son has been fortunate to have two different high level pitching guys as his HC twice over the past few summers.  I think that spoiled both him and me a little bit.  It makes a big difference in his overall role on the team, outside of pitching.  With HS, he doesn't even have a pitching coach as an asst.

Well SG, as a former (high level I might add) coach/manager of our older son once told the pitchers on his team (son is a pitcher BTW)..."You guys aren't real baseball players.  If I could figure out how to play the game without you, I'd do it!" 

Ha... Yes, that's basically the disconnect I'm trying to get at.  It's mostly a kidding thing as you describe, but there is truth behind it too.

. . . "there's no crying in Baseball !!"    

In baseball make up pertains to everything except for the physical part of playing.  

 

You can have two completely different players with different make up, yet they both might be considered as having championship make up.  It's a combination of things that allow a player to be a winner or be successful.

 

It's not a choir boy type thing.  The nicest kid in town might have bad make up when it comes to baseball. On the other hand, the kid that seems like a jerk could have big time winning type make up.

 

Make up is extremely important.  Scouts will go out of their way trying to figure it out.  It can allow one player to be very successful while another might fail.  Many have the physical ability but the other things, their make up, won't allow them to succeed.  Others with less physical ability have made it to the top because of make up.

 

BTW, there have been many mistakes made in evaluating someone's make up.

 

Regarding Trout or Puig, my guess is they both might have great make up.  For sure we know Mike has great make up.  It's still too early to tell with Puig.  Much different upbringing between those two. 

 

It's all about what creates winning!  There have been many players with great make up, that later spent time behind bars.  Pete Rose is not exactly the greatest guy on earth.  But as a baseball player his make up was off the charts.