TPM. Break it down. What % of exposure compared to % of year round play compared with % of talent etc.. on why Florida produces top players.
IMO this is a situation where everyone is right. It's everything combined together in sufficient amounts presented to the right people in an acceptable package. It is a complex COMBINATION of elements that determines the end product a player will become. I do believe that a geographical location or ethnic background can impact the elements a player needs to succeed, but I don't think ethnicity alone has any impact on their future. In other words I agree with rz1 that if Hispanics migrated to the North woods they would not be heavily involved in baseball and their perceived prowess for baseball would diminish or if many Swedes moved south of the border they would find bobsledding difficult and many would turn to, and succeed at baseball. My son had a talent for baseball. Actually what he had very good eye-hand coordination that allowed him to be good at baseball. He also possessed the talent to "fling" something at a high velocity. He could have been successful at a number or athletic endeavors that suited his ability but he chose baseball. I don't know why a ball impressed him as a small boy --- it just did. Another son was infatuated with a wheel. Where he lived, how he lived, the things we taught him, the things we failed to teach him, the God given "athleticism" he had all factored in. Anyone that watches olympic sports knows that athletes can come from anywhere and their success can be attributed to many different things. I've never seen a Hispanic Sumo wrestler or an African curler but that doesn't mean they can't do it in a world class way. In these two cases I guess diet and temperature have as much of an impact on an athlete's success as much as anything else.
Originally posted by gitnby:
Interesting observation about Hispanic players.
But, it just goes to prove my point about geography and genetics.
If more kids from the Dominican Republic lived in Minnesota, then Minnesota would produce more and better players. They would find a way to work on their skills, regardless of the weather.
Obviously, I didn't phrase my earlier post properly.
I didn't mean to imply that there were not good ballplayers up North, or that all Dominicans or Hispanics are genetically great players!
My point is that even if you exclude the Hispanics, there are more good players that live in the warmer climates.
The ability to play and practice year-round is an advantage, but as we start to see more Fall baseball, better training and indoor facilities, that advantage will dissipate some.
St Louis was arguably the most dominant s...er city in the US for years. Many families from other parts of the US moved here to put their kids in the private schools that had high-profile programs. As more programs developed in other parts of the US, the dominance waned, and cities in TX, CA and FL began to take over. It wasn't the weather!
S....er is a year round sport in St Louis, with or without indoor facilities.
Interesting observation about Hispanic players.
But, it just goes to prove my point about geography and genetics.
If more kids from the Dominican Republic lived in Minnesota, then Minnesota would produce more and better players. They would find a way to work on their skills, regardless of the weather.
Obviously, I didn't phrase my earlier post properly.
I didn't mean to imply that there were not good ballplayers up North, or that all Dominicans or Hispanics are genetically great players!
My point is that even if you exclude the Hispanics, there are more good players that live in the warmer climates.
The ability to play and practice year-round is an advantage, but as we start to see more Fall baseball, better training and indoor facilities, that advantage will dissipate some.
St Louis was arguably the most dominant s...er city in the US for years. Many families from other parts of the US moved here to put their kids in the private schools that had high-profile programs. As more programs developed in other parts of the US, the dominance waned, and cities in TX, CA and FL began to take over. It wasn't the weather!
S....er is a year round sport in St Louis, with or without indoor facilities.
For the vast majority of athletes, parental supoport has the greatest influence on the success or failure of the player. (yes there are kids out there who beat the odds) Talent, exposure and climate, factor into the equation. Bottom line. If the families of athletes are not onboard on all fronts, in todays world, the majority of those athletes are going nowhere.
Major league teams building facilities in third world countries, are basically affording the local youths the same opportunity that many U.S kids recieve from their parents. A place to play, quality instruction, training and exposure.
Major league teams building facilities in third world countries, are basically affording the local youths the same opportunity that many U.S kids recieve from their parents. A place to play, quality instruction, training and exposure.
quote:For the vast majority of athletes, parental supoport has the greatest influence on the success or failure of the player.
I DISAGREE ----- it's talent.
My son played football in HS and the coaches wouldn't allow the players to leave school Fridays (game day) because the parents wouldn't (or couldn't) bring them back to the games.
This very topic was our Summer Team manager speech. He informed the players they were all "talented", however in order to advance they had to out work the competition. He stated there are kids that go off to college, end up coming home because the work was too much. He gave an example of an older player in the system who is now at D1 school. Up at 5AM to work out, then to school at 8AM, classes until 1PM, then baseball practice the remainder of daylight. Then on to his tutors and back in bed by midnight. Not to mention no home cooked meals, laundry, etc. etc. For those of us not there yet, does our son's have the work ethic to handle all this? Only time will tell.
How is talent developed? By the sacrafices a family makes with time and money. If your kid at 5 years old is throwing rocks 150 yards. He's a talented rock thrower. You are either going to allow him to perfect his rock throwing skills in the middle east or your going to develop that skill into something a little more mainstream. At the sacrafice of family resources. It might be as simple as buying a ball and a glove maybe its's javelin. But you know it's not going to stop there.
That is facilitating.
I do get dswann's point. If your family has an athletic bent you get your kids into sports. If they have an artist soul they are artists. Without out a doubt there are Mickey Mantles out there who never picked up a ball as well as Picasso's who never picked up a brush. Parents are the number one influence on young kids development in all areas. After they get older, their own tastes and talents takes over.
There is no doubt that facilitators are necessary but they are not developers of talent.
I agree with Fungo and BHD. The kids have the natural talent and we, the parents, help them by providing them the opportunity to further develope that talent. The talent can be wasted if the player and/or the parents don't work with it.
Talent comes first, everything else is facilitating the talent. All natural talents, whether sports or artistic, have to be refined and practiced. Without the talent all the practice and exposure in the world will not make someone a world class professional.
Talent comes first, everything else is facilitating the talent. All natural talents, whether sports or artistic, have to be refined and practiced. Without the talent all the practice and exposure in the world will not make someone a world class professional.
So the ingrediants for success for a given sport would be
1. Talent
2. Skill
3. Climate
4. Passion / Drive
5. Facilitator
Would a pitching sequence of, 1st pitch 95mph fastball on the black, 2nd pitch 12-6 curve, 3rd pitch + 90 fastball under the chin, 4th pitch 79 mph change-up for strike 3. Be an example of talent or skill.
One last question. Is bowling a game or a sport ?
1. Talent
2. Skill
3. Climate
4. Passion / Drive
5. Facilitator
Would a pitching sequence of, 1st pitch 95mph fastball on the black, 2nd pitch 12-6 curve, 3rd pitch + 90 fastball under the chin, 4th pitch 79 mph change-up for strike 3. Be an example of talent or skill.
One last question. Is bowling a game or a sport ?
Talent exists and skills are learned. The example is a talented pitcher who has learned the skills required to throw the sequence you described for strikes. A talented pitcher who has not been taught skills (more than 1 type of pitch) may only throw FBs for example. Short stops learn skills like proper handling of balls coming at them. A talented SS with learn the skills and be more successful than a less talented player learning the same skills.
your list is good.
your list is good.
Throwing a 95 FB is natural talent. Everything else in the sequence is skill. IMO
Bowling is a sport. Alot more people can win or defeat (or whatever you call successful completion)a video GAME than can bowl a 300.
Bowling is a sport. Alot more people can win or defeat (or whatever you call successful completion)a video GAME than can bowl a 300.
The ability to throw 95 is a talent but the ability to throw it for a strike is a skill. It requires repetition and has a learning curve even for a talented pitcher. The mecahnical aspects are taught.
I've always had the saying that talent will get you to the next level and skill will keep you there.
I've always thought that talent on it's own won't get you a cup of coffee.
Well, if you can throw 98 and not hit the broad side of a barn, I'll bet a few organizations would take a chance on you.
So then it's 1. talent 2. facilitator 3. etc...
quote:So the ingrediants for success for a given sport would be
1. Talent
2. Skill
3. Climate
4. Passion / Drive
5. Facilitator
I would put it this way
1. Talent/Skill
2. Effort
3. Intelligence
4. Luck
If a player has the above things going for him, he will be very successful.
Just to explain. You can not give the necessary effort without things like desire, passion, drive, etc.
The skill cannot be lumped with talent. Skills are learned.
I think the lists include things that are important to be success but not necessarily in the order given. Talent is first for sure.
I think the lists include things that are important to be success but not necessarily in the order given. Talent is first for sure.
quote:BHD quote:
Talent exists and skills are learned.
I agree with BHD's statement 100% but would replace "learned" with "developed". While it's a minor play on words, developed has always meant to me that you are constantly building on a "skill set". An example would be that you don't learn strength, you develop it, and baseball skills are continually worked on as long as you play the game.
LL is a perfect test ground where we see talent winning over skill, and then that day comes where those who had worked on "game skills" pass by that kid who strutted at the top on talent only. I think we've all seen it happen at around 12 or 13 years old, and then years later we look back and it's pretty clear where that that "line of demarcation" occurred.
I can live with that distinction.
"LL is a perfect test ground where we see talent winning over skill, and then that day comes where those who had worked on "game skills" pass by that kid who strutted at the top on talent only. "
Definetly agree with the above, the younger ages seem to be more succesful for those who were born with "IT". run fast, natural athletic ability.
Where as for other kids they develop through constant practice of skills and agility.
Talent does have alot to do with success later, but how do the acadamies in Latin America figure into the picture?
Definetly agree with the above, the younger ages seem to be more succesful for those who were born with "IT". run fast, natural athletic ability.
Where as for other kids they develop through constant practice of skills and agility.
Talent does have alot to do with success later, but how do the acadamies in Latin America figure into the picture?
quote:LL is a perfect test ground where we see talent winning over skill, and then that day comes where those who had worked on "game skills" pass by that kid who strutted at the top on talent only
Not sure I agree with that. My son is at 14U and most of the skills guys are barely hanging on. The talented kids are taking over. They are gaining skills to go with their talent.
quote:Originally posted by dswann:
TPM. Break it down. What % of exposure compared to % of year round play compared with % of talent etc.. on why Florida produces top players.
How can I break that down?
I wasn't the one who originally stated that FL players are more talented BECAUSE OF YEAR ROUND BASEBALL OR BETTER GENES. In my own players case, his good genes included gorilla arms and ostrich legs, making it easier to stay loose, throw harder, but his skills were taught to him just like everyone else in the country id taught, north, south, east, west. His instructors may have had more baseball experience. I do feel that has lots to do with it. Not being a year round player until very late in HS, playing year round baseball and more innings didn't make him a better players because he didn't do that. In fact, I'll bet he played less baseball than most of his HS class.
Nor do I think that talent is more predominate here than anywhere else, talent is everywhere, just more opportunities to develop skills, more tournies, more showcases, more scouts running scout teams, more ex profesionals giving lessons, more facilities, etc. In other words as Fungo suggests, a combination of the elements that exist here. If some people say that the warmer weather impacts players development, that's ok. But it is not because the genes are better, or that kids get more at bats. It could be, because of the better weather and being able to be outdoors 365 days a year, that players are more athletic.
I understand that “skill” is something that relates to development and experience. What about this… Player A runs a 6.5 60, Player B runs a 7.5 60. A year later Player B works very hard to improve and runs a 7.0 60, Player A doesn’t work at it and still runs a 6.5 60.
Question… Who is the most “skilled” sprinter? How do we define “skill”?
Guess if we are talking about baseball, the reason I lump the two together is because Raw Talent by itself doesn’t equate to success. It takes Talent and Skill along with some other important things mentioned earlier (never forget luck)!
Don’t know if I’ve ever seen a player who is highly skilled but lacks talent. That talent might not be something obvious like running, jumping or throwing, but where there is a high level of skill, there is talent. IMO
I'm not really arguing, just driving down the highway with nothing better to do.
Should say, wife is driving!
Question… Who is the most “skilled” sprinter? How do we define “skill”?
Guess if we are talking about baseball, the reason I lump the two together is because Raw Talent by itself doesn’t equate to success. It takes Talent and Skill along with some other important things mentioned earlier (never forget luck)!
Don’t know if I’ve ever seen a player who is highly skilled but lacks talent. That talent might not be something obvious like running, jumping or throwing, but where there is a high level of skill, there is talent. IMO
I'm not really arguing, just driving down the highway with nothing better to do.
Should say, wife is driving!quote:Originally posted by Doughnutman:
Not sure I agree with that. My son is at 14U and most of the skills guys are barely hanging on. The talented kids are taking over. They are gaining skills to go with their talent.
Good thought doughnutman. I think that is another "group" within the whole scheme of things. ....
However, maybe the definition of talent and skill differs from person to person.
When I think young "talent" I think of the kid who picks up his first bat and is "rotational" right away
, every position comes with ease compared to others his age, and he runs circles around his teammates. The skilled kid, is the kid who "understood" why things are done a certain way and practiced it until his body starts to mature and others finally see him stand out as visibly "skilled".
When that "talented" kid also has that "skilled" mentality, mentality, work ethic, and passion, that's when you have something very special.
Maybe skilled is not only "hand-eye" but also a mental state a player has
This is really interesting stuff!
Son had a coach early on that defined players this way;
Players come in one of two ways, Stallions or Donkeys. Stallions can be taught to be better if they will work hard and allow themselves to be taught. They are however already a Stallion and impressive to begin with. Donkeys can be taught the same things you teach a Stallion making them a very good Donkey, but they will never be a Stallion.
I didn’t take his statement to mean anything negative about being a Donkey. Sure made my son work harder though, just in case you know…..
In my mind, I would much rather have a team comprised of a bunch of hard working Donkeys then one made up of erratic Stallions.
Son had a coach early on that defined players this way;
Players come in one of two ways, Stallions or Donkeys. Stallions can be taught to be better if they will work hard and allow themselves to be taught. They are however already a Stallion and impressive to begin with. Donkeys can be taught the same things you teach a Stallion making them a very good Donkey, but they will never be a Stallion.
I didn’t take his statement to mean anything negative about being a Donkey. Sure made my son work harder though, just in case you know…..
In my mind, I would much rather have a team comprised of a bunch of hard working Donkeys then one made up of erratic Stallions.
Baseball is a beautiful game. A big fat Donkey who runs a 8.5 60 , has a vertical of about 3 inches , can't chew gum and walk at the same time , can get up on that hill and shove it up a bunch of Stallions as*'s. And then when the game is over and the Donkey wins it really doesn't matter who was the Donkey and who was the stallion does it?
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
It could be, because of the better weather and being able to be outdoors 365 days a year, that players are more athletic.
That sounds like Southerners look at us chessebutts
. Trust when I say "athletic" is not always measured in a baseball sense. Contrary to the what many say our kids don't hibernate in the winter and outside activity is "everyday". Our weightrooms are full, you ski, you skate, you run, you shovel snow, you push cars out of ditches, and just walking in snow is a true aerobic workout. In the same regard I would say a Northerner spends more time outdoors in the dead of the summer than a Southerner because of your heat. I don't think it's fair to say their more athletic.
maybe a dumb question but................
do you have to compete in athletics to BE athletic?
do you have to compete in athletics to BE athletic?
Do math-aletes count? 
Stallions would have the body, the looks, and other physical attributes. They have a lot going for them, but it is entirely possible the Donkey has more talent/skill.
Here is the million dollar question…
Is Dustin Pedroia more talented or skillful?
Here is the million dollar question…
Is Dustin Pedroia more talented or skillful?
PG
I think with Pedroia the answer is simple---HE IS A WINNER----when I saw him in college at ASU you could see he was a winner---he has taken his skill and his talent to the MAX
I think with Pedroia the answer is simple---HE IS A WINNER----when I saw him in college at ASU you could see he was a winner---he has taken his skill and his talent to the MAX
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Is Dustin Pedroia more talented or skillful?
I think someone like that or for that matter any player who makes it to that level falls into the
When that "talented" kid also has that "skilled" players mentality, work ethic, and passion, that's when you have something very special.
There are kids that we would call raw in baseball skill that are very physically gifted. You see kids that are not as physically gifted but they are very skilled at the game. In the end it really doesnt matter. Can you hit? Can you throw? Can you field? Can you play the game? It will not matter how physically gifted you are if you can not actully put those gifts to use in a manner that makes you successful at actually playing the game. The kids that are physically gifted and have the tools needed to play the game at a high level are special talents. Then there are the guys that may not be physically gifted but they can just hit , throw and play the game. Either way they are still all very good players. So it really doesnt matter. You can either play or you can not.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
It could be, because of the better weather and being able to be outdoors 365 days a year, that players are more athletic.
I should have said, "could it be"..I was not referring that warm weather kids are more athletic, I am just trying to figure out why some always bring up the warmr weather kids get all the breaks 9FL, TX, CA). I'll go on my first assumption it's due to more exposure.
Wouldn't most MLB players be both talented and skilled? Some players like Pedroia, Rollins, and Jeter have speed and hitting talent. Howard, Dunn and others have power talent. And the truly lucky like ARod, Pujois, Griffey, Bonds, have talent in every aspect. I think 95+ mph pitchers are a special talent. These players are all also skilled because they worked at their talent year after year. The rest have varying degrees of talent at various tools.
As I read this maybe guys like Howard and Dunn have talent but not that much skill. I hate to say it but Howard is not much of a first baseman and Dunn struggles to hit .225. They might be examples of one dimensional talents that made it to the top. Not that their's anything wrong with that!
I think the five tools are talents. How a player sharpens one or all of those talents and develops it into a skilled talent determines how far he goes. If a player has a natural talent and never improves and develops it he still has the talent, it is just dormant. A pitcher who throws 90+ at 18 then stops throwing can, after building his arm back up, probably throw 90+ again at 23.
Also if you have one of the baseball 5 tools (talents) you don't have to be physically gifted overall. You can look like a donkey and throw, hit, or hit with power like a stallion.
The more I think about talent vs. skill the more intertwined they become. But I still think it starts with a talent that is developed into skilled talent. When you get to the higher levels it is probably different levels of skilled talent.
Now I have a headache!
As I read this maybe guys like Howard and Dunn have talent but not that much skill. I hate to say it but Howard is not much of a first baseman and Dunn struggles to hit .225. They might be examples of one dimensional talents that made it to the top. Not that their's anything wrong with that!
I think the five tools are talents. How a player sharpens one or all of those talents and develops it into a skilled talent determines how far he goes. If a player has a natural talent and never improves and develops it he still has the talent, it is just dormant. A pitcher who throws 90+ at 18 then stops throwing can, after building his arm back up, probably throw 90+ again at 23.
Also if you have one of the baseball 5 tools (talents) you don't have to be physically gifted overall. You can look like a donkey and throw, hit, or hit with power like a stallion.
The more I think about talent vs. skill the more intertwined they become. But I still think it starts with a talent that is developed into skilled talent. When you get to the higher levels it is probably different levels of skilled talent.
Now I have a headache!