Is "It" Talent or Skill?

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
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?

If we stick with the animal metaphors you could say Pedroia is like a pit bull on a poodle. He reminds me sort of an infield version of Lenny Dykstra. He has an uncanny ability to square up pitches of all types in clutch moments and has great range at 2nd base. He is very clutch. Clutch is more talent than skill. He is the exception to every rule. He barely comes up to Jeters shoulders. What suprises me is he was drafted so high, 2nd round 2004. Theo is a genius.

quote:

Originally posted by Dad04:
He is very clutch. Clutch is more talent than skill.

I hate when I'm wrong

Good call Dad04

I think there are many, many players that have talent and skill. You do not have to be a 5 tool player to be a MLB player. Talent combined with skill, skill combined with talent, projection, and as suggested luck plays a big part of the picture.

But IMO, very few really have the "it". "It" is something that you may see when a player is 14 and "it" is still there when he is 17,25, 30. The creme de la creme. The one guy who stands out above all others, regardless of his size. You don't see it often, but when you do, it hits you like a revelation that you have never seen anything like "it" before.
JMO about "it".

He is very clutch. Clutch is more talent than skill. [/QUOTE]

BINGO!!!! After watching/lurking all of you reply, This Quote hits it right on the head with me. I agree with most all of the posts... I started this discussion because I am torn about my son's current stage of development. He is working weekly with Professionals to raise the level of his game. Son is a "talented" hitter. He can't throw "gas", but is very skilled with his throwing mechanics and mound presences. Needs major improvement with his foot speed... Has great Knowledge of the game. Student of the game...Talented or skilled?

quote:

You do not have to be a 5 tool player to be a MLB player

Some top prospects reports:


"Like a lot of power hitters, former 1st rounder still has some holes in his swing—in his case, high and inside, and against offspeed pitches low and away. He struggled after the trade and again in winter ball when pitchers fed him soft stuff in hitter's counts. Though he has some feel for the outfield, he has below-average speed and range with fringy arm strength"

"Player's power may not fit the third-base profile, as his swing from both sides is geared more toward line drives. The Big Club would like him to be more aggressive to exploit pitches he can drive. He's fairly slow and has modest athleticism."

" 2nd Rounder's approach doesn't lend itself to drawing a lot of walks. He has below-average speed, though he's by no means a baseclogger."

" Some scouts wonder how 1st rounder's new stance—he lowered his hands in the Cape—will translate to wood. He's a fringe-average runner and his range doesn't stand out at shortstop."

"Strikeouts remain the biggest concern for 1st rounder. He's still learning to recognize the spin on offspeed pitches and to lay off fastballs up in the zone. He has a late hitch in his swing that counteracts some of his bat speed. He has an awkward running style."

"1st rounder has a tendency to lunge at times at the plate and can get tied up with hard stuff on the inner half. He's a below-average runner whose quickness and range have been called into question."

Talent or coordination in most cases is not always natural. A kid thats goes home and plays outdoors all the time - it doesnt even need to be baseball, just running around and being physical - will have more coordination ( talent ) then the kid that stays indoors. I believe high level hitting is skill - talent can get you through LL. Fielding is more talent. jmo

I think we are confusing the word "talent" with "natural ablity".

If you say "John is a talented player", that is different than saying "John has talent".

How about, "John is a skilled player" versus "John has good skills"?

It was stated earlier, but "IT" is what you perceive "IT" to be!

I think Yogi Berra said it best in the AFLAC commercial:

"If you don't have "IT", that's why you need "IT"!

those defintions are from a book

Those definitions answer the question.I am surprised people get that confused. One is natural and the other is acquired through training, Neither is finite . All people have different levels of talent but it is inherent in the individual. Skills are acquired by specific practice of the skills. More talent usually means more skills given the same practice, effort etc.

This is a very easy question to find a definition for, but a very difficult question to apply to a player. I have known a few kids who are in HS now since they were 8 years old. One could always hit an inside pitch a mile and one could always hit the up and away pitch a mile.
They are now sixteen and they still do the same thing. Is it talent or skill? Now if they switch and can hit both pitches it is definitely skill. But when they hit the same pitch a ton that they did as 8 year olds I lean to talent. Even though it is a skill. Very confusing, to me a least.

They failed to acguire the skill to hit all pitches. That is something they can work on and improve. if they can't they lack the talent to do so.
Some people have talents to do some things and not others.
People say that kid is talented but what they mean is he shows a lot of skill and yes he is talented.

Great topic here!

I don't think the story ends with just talent and/or skill. I'm not sure any of us know what the recipe for success is.

When Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf were about to get drafted, the talk was, which one will be the better QB. They both were extremely talented and skilled and they both seemed destined for a long successful NFL career. But we all know what happened. Manning is as good as any QB ever and Leaf was a total bust.

So there is a lot more going on here than just talent and skill. Why is Reggie Jackson 'Mr. October' and Dave Winfield 'Mr. May'.

Even in High School, there are kids who you trust to pitch the bottom of the last inning with a one run lead and there are kids who you would never want pitching the bottom of the last inning with a one run lead. At that point, the coach is hardly thinking about which kid is more talented or skilled, he's picking the kid that can 'get it done'. And that kid might be the 2nd, 3rd or 4th most talented and/or skilled kid.

I would say success is a witch's brew of things like talent, skill, confidence, ability to adapt, intelligence, passion, ability to focus, savvy for the game, courage, strength of will, preparation and probably many other things as well.

Each one of the above can be the most important depending on the situation. I remember watching John McEnroe totally lose his cool after a bad call then regroup and place a perfect serve for a crucial ace. His ability to regain his focus after adversity was tested the same way a pitchers focus would be tested when he throws the perfect pitch on the corner but doesn't get the call.

In the end, the one thing that should be measured above all else is production. Talent, skill and all the other qualities that go into the makeup of a player are just tools to be used by him so he can produce. And the tools he uses to produce should be less important than his production.

Dear Old Dad,

quote:

If we stick with the animal metaphors you could say Pedroia is like a pit bull on a poodle.

I've always called these players Pit-Yorkies. The bite you in the ankles and don't let go until they win. One of my favorite posters growing up (wish I still had it) was a smaller animal being swallowed by a larger animal. The smaller animal had the bigger animal by the throat yelling, "Had enough yet?"

quote:

Originally posted by Dear old Dad:
Great topic here!

I don't think the story ends with just talent and/or skill. I'm not sure any of us know what the recipe for success is.

I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up.

I've always viewed "It" in a similar way to D.O.D. It's kind of that special ability to create wins in a way that seems to transcend the talent and skills. When we discuss It in my circles, we find the only way to really define It is with the two lists: The "It's" and the "Not It's".

Anybody want to take a cut at them?

quote:

Originally posted by dswann:
So the ingrediants for success for a given sport
.
.
.

One last question. Is bowling a game or a sport ?

If in StL, MO, baseball and bowling is a religion.
Might be the only place in CONUS!

I had the pleasure of speaking to a old timer scout one night at a Junior College Regional game. He told me that he loves the kids from the Midwest(non tropical states) because every time he sees them they seem to get better--where the kids from those warmer states by the this time--- what you see is what you get.

I have liked those baseball players 'who have something to prove'. As an example: Josh Hamilton

quote:

I had the pleasure of speaking to a old timer scout one night at a Junior College Regional game. He told me that he loves the kids from the Midwest(non tropical states) because every time he sees them they seem to get better--where the kids from those warmer states by the this time--- what you see is what you get.

Bob,
It has been our experience that getting better is not a regional thing. Some we have seen that improved the most from one year to the next come from California, Florida and Texas. I do believe that the kids from the north and midwest could be considered to have more upside due to lack of repetition, but that does not necessarily mean they will get better. We have seen kids from the north and the midwest that don't get any better from one year to the next, just like everywhere else in the country. Getting better does not often happen by accident. It can happen due to increased size and/or strength, but that is not exclusive to any part of the country. And yes, there are great athletes all over the country. Typically the bigger the state, the more great athletes/baseball players within that state. That is why states like Illinois and New York have more players drafted than states like Mississippi and New Mexico.

Is Greg Maddux more talent or skill?
Jamie Moyer? David Eckstein? Manny Ramirez? Willie Mays?

Who is the most skilled... Is it the naturally talented or the one who spends every minute learning his skill? Did the most skilled player ever, learn more than than all the others or was his talent so great he picked up the skill without as much effort?

We all know the difference between talent and skill, but in athletics the person who runs the fastest is labeled the most skilled sprinter. The most talented hitter is labeled the most skilled hitter. True talent and true skill is in the end defined by results! In that way they are they are often the same thing. IMO

There have been a few Canadians who were are and will be MVPs in MLB.

So let me get this straight, If our son keeps working on his skills, his talent will increase. Right?

The talent exists and the skills wil get better. Obviously the body matures so the talent manifests itself as you mature.

quote:

Originally posted by OLDSLUGGER8:
Everyone knows warm weather players represent MLB, US born about 60/40 recently. My point is, they come from everywhere.

Maine  0

cept Maine…But that one I can understand…Bangor seems to have a peculiar vibe to me…**** you Stephen King!

They probably play s****r with lobster heads up there.

quote:

OLDSLUGGER8 quote:

Everyone knows warm weather players represent MLB, US born about 60/40 recently. My point is, they come from everywhere.

Well put together lists Slugger.

What surprises me is that FL, who is usually kind of "puffy chested" about their baseball blood lines could hardly carry CA lunch. CA is king hands down.

One hypotheses that might be taken into account as a result of this list is that FL may have as much "talent" in the early years because of the ethnicities of the State, but as kids get older and baseball not only has economic repercussions on families (showcases, travel teams) but the college option is not as viable because of that same ethnicity issue. As a result those skills do not get practiced at the college level as much as the CA group.

CA baseball on the other hand may have a more "economically & educationally stable" families involved and the fallout of participants 16-18 yr of age is not as drastic as FL, thus you end up with more "skilled" talent when MLB comes calling.

This is not to be written in stone because us Northerners not only lack some baseball skills but there are few athletes up here to begin with, so what do we know

Slugger,

I would describe lack of repetition in many important ways. Number of ground balls fielded, number of at bats, number of at bats against quality competition, Number of games played against quality competition, and many other things.

Repetition in games against quality competition are the very most important repetitions. The one at bat against 75 mph pitching is not the same “rep” as an at bat against 92 mph pitching. Yet it doesn’t tell us which hitter will end up being the best.

If more players are getting drafted or going to college to play from a certain area, that area has more and better competition. The players who see this competition year round have an advantage over those who don’t. It in no way means that those players who don’t see this same caliber of competition as often have less potential. In fact, it is a reason to give those players more projection. Also, just being in an environment that has a large number of current and former professional players has to be somewhat of an advantage.

The percentage of population who make the Major Leagues from any one state is not as important as to the total number drafted from each state. If a state had a population of 2 and 1 made it, they would be number one (by percentage) by a huge amount.

It is amazing when such a large state like California is number one based on total numbers and percentage of population. For that matter, Florida and Texas being in the top 10 is amazing as well.

That means there’s a lot of players running around those states who have professional baseball ability. Cedar Rapids, Iowa probably has a higher percentage of population in the Big Leagues than Chicago. However, there might be 20 times as many in the Big Leagues from Chicago. So which area has the better baseball? I actually already know the answer to that question.

Also when a player is drafted out of college, he is often said to be drafted from the state where the college is. For example… Is someone like Jeff Clement who went to HS in Iowa and signed out of Southern Cal counted as Iowa or California?

Anyway, above all, if you look at the draft every year, it is obvious that certain states have more players drafted than others. Over the years Illinois and New York are high on the list of players drafted. This only goes to prove that lots of talent exists in the North and the Midwest. Talent can be anywhere and everyone knows that. However, in most cases the talent in states like California, Florida and Texas will be overall more “advanced” at the high school level than the states in the north. It’s very obvious by following summer baseball and the draft each year. I think it is the competition that is most responsible.

That said, the players from the north can be considered to have more projection. Simply because they have not played as much at the highest levels. In fact, the teams from the north who do seek this high level of competition seem to have the most players going on to college and professional baseball. In the end it makes no difference where any individual player is from. The best player of all could come from anywhere in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by OLDSLUGGER8:
If you really want to have some fun with numbers, look at the draft disparity amongst certain States.

For some more numerical fun, read Malcom Gladwell's book "Outlier: The Story of Success". He makes a really interesting observation about the high correlation of pro athlete's birthdays relative to the cut-off dates for competetive youth sports. It sounds hokey until you look at the data he provides. He shows how an overwhelming majority of pro baseball and hockey players are born just after the cut-off dates, and proposes that those kids are raised with a lifetime of athletic successes because they are older than most in their classes. Seems just as reasonable as some of these theories...

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:

Also, just being in an environment that has a large number of current and former professional players has to be somewhat of an advantage.


That said, the players from the north can be considered to have more projection. Simply because they have not played as much at the highest levels. In fact, the teams from the north who do seek this high level of competition seem to have the most players going on to college and professional baseball. In the end it makes no difference where any individual player is from. The best player of all could come from anywhere in the world.

OLDSLUGGER,

I think you might be reading something other than what I mean. BTW, which historical numbers are you referring to?

Obviously 90-92 is 90-92 anywhere in the world. One might be better than the other, but the best could easily be the kid from the north. There’s just not as many of those types, it’s sure not because they don’t exist.

If you are a high school hitter from (you name it state in the north) you might hit against 90-92 once or twice a year. If you are a high school hitter in Florida, Georgia, California or Texas, you will see 90-92 much more often. There’s really no sense in arguing that point. If I’m wrong we’ve been wasting a lot of time for the past 20 years. The Indiana kid can easily hone his skills in Indiana. He can even be the best player in the country. There’s just more that are like him in other parts of the country.

It’s this simple… If you took the top 25 players in the state of Ohio, they would all be very good. The top one or two could possibly be as good as anyone in the country. In California, Texas or Florida there might be several hundred players who would be at the level of the top 25 in another state. These top players compete against each other on a frequent basis.

We are not talking about who the top athletes are, but the most advanced baseball players! This is a result of the competition and the environment. The thing I’ve probably noticed more than anything is that there seems to be more of the “late bloomer” types that come from the cold climate states. This is yet another thing that relates to players from certain areas of the country being more “advanced”.

Man, there's some good stuff in this thread! It's worth reading a time or two!

Could someone be so kind to go through the math that gets a southern player 3,000-4,000 more at bats over a northern player? I just find it hard to believe that it is that many. For example:

Player plays from age 8 (I am discounting at bats before 8) to age 18, that is 10 years. Using the low side of 3,000 that is an extra 300 at bats per year. Using 4 at bats per game, that is an extra 75 games per year. For 10 years! That added to what in the north 50-75 games? 150 game years? For 10 years! I think that would border on abuse of the pitchers and catchers. There may be kids that have done that many 3 or 4 years out of the 10, but I don't know too many of them.

Someone help me out here. I would think it would be more, but not that much more. We generally don't play too many games (pony, little league, HS or travel) in December/January in Florida.

quote:

It is obvious talent comes from everywhere, and this whole aspect of warm weather players being better overall is ridiculous. If it was true, then you would have MLB of Florida, MLB of Texas, and MLB of California.

3000-4000 extra at bats is an easy thing to believe, but when measured as to where these players started playing baseball as youths, then the whole theory is shot because it is pure math that a higher population can produce a greater result.

What are you smoking exactly? No one in this entire thread has suggested that talented kids cannot come from the north.

By your own numbers posted above, over three times as many players come from Florida as New York yet NY has an overwhelming population advantage. Why wouldn't NY produce more players using your convoluted logic? Because the scouts are myopic? Because the kids in Florida are getting more "indoor" practice time? More "indoor" tee work? More "indoor" soft tosssing work? (sarcasim off).

How about the most obvious answer of all that PG has stated - more repetitions against quality competition. Obviously, if the repetitions are against the local weak sisters of the poor they don't mean a whole lot. Repetitions against top competition is the only way to explain it. Do you think when athletes are born that their athletic genetic codes are somehow magically "ratcheted up a notch" if they are born in Texas, Florida, or California? The only way to explain these differences (in the aggregate - not the exceptions) is by experience. What is so hard to understand about that?

I also agree with PG on another point. It is entirely possible for a kid born in the north to have more upside even if presently they might not have the same experience. As all the state numbers suggest, talent comes from anywhere.

I think that number came from what MLB usually feels a player needs to become proficient at the MLB level ( good experience more meaningful). That's why many position players head off to college. I always thought that count began after HS, unless the hitter was a first rounder very close to MLB.
My understanding is NOT always so much who has more talent or skill, but who has talent and skill with more experience, something you need to have before you get to the show.

JMO.

Not to totally change the subject, but it is pretty tough to improve once you are recognized the very best. This can be explained as "satisfaction" which can be a baseball players worst enemy.

Often we will see an extremely talented underclassmen from a not so competitive part of the country. Then the next year he is the exact same player. Still by far better than everyone else in his part of the world.

These things are less likely to happen in the baseball hotbed areas. That is because there are so many talented players... if you get satisfied... they start passing you up in a hurry! The competition forces players to keep getting better.

However, that satisfaction thing has no boundaries... It has jumped up and nailed many talented players from all parts of the country.

TPM, I have heard the number 3,000 for at bats after HS. But that is not the context in which it is used in this thread.

In your opinion why would position players want to get 750 or so at bats in college with aluminum when they could get at least twice that with wood in the minors over the same time span against better pitching?

Backstop - I sent you a pm.

PG - the satisfaction thing also affects workers and other non-baseball players as well. This downturn in the economy is a wakeup call for many people.

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
What are you smoking exactly?

Post elimination drugs when encountered by superiority complexes.

quote:

PG quote:
Not to totally change the subject, but it is pretty tough to improve once you are recognized the very best. This can be explained as "satisfaction" which can be a baseball players worst enemy.

Great point pg. Do you think that may be part of the reason Northern kids in the later part of the HS years are labeled "projectable". Reason being, that they go on the travel and showcase circuit and can see that the end is still a bit away and that initial drive is still there?

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:


Often we will see an extremely talented underclassmen from a not so competitive part of the country. Then the next year he is the exact same player. Still by far better than everyone else in his part of the world.

***What does that mean?***

These things are less likely to happen in the baseball hotbed areas. That is because there are so many talented players... if you get satisfied... they start passing you up in a hurry! The competition forces players to keep getting better.

***Now we have Regional Motivation Factors?***

However, that satisfaction thing has no boundaries... It has jumped up and nailed many talented players from all parts of the country.

***And then a backpedal Contradiction***

Could it be that hotbed player "hit the wall"

Any chance not so competitive area players work very hard also? Lots of assumptions!

Look up a player named Marc Krauss from Ohio U.

Better yet, maybe I should head over to the local indoor facility here where several college and minor league players are working out together during break to prepare for the season and mention that they come from an area not very competitive.

I am sure they would get a huge laugh!!

Since there was some posted reference to HS baseball, show us that average velocity of Florida HS pitchers in HS is so much higher than say, Michigan?

Northern kids play summerball also, and face some pretty solid competition out of State.

Florida, about 13000 people per high school

18,000,000 folks and about 1350 schools

About 12,500 people per high school in Texas?

Anyone seeing a pattern here?

The distribution of talent is about equal per high school, and they are all NOT studs, so it is relative.

Cali, Texas, and Florida have more better players because of population, not because they are premier competition. You can only slice bread so much into slices.

The math proves it.

Saying a northern State is weaker competition is way wrong. It is all relative, by population.

Tell the scouts that. Its like the Lake of California and the Lake of Illinois. The Cali lake is bigger as is the fish population.

The Illinois lake is smaller, as is their fish population. Less water to cover, less fish. In Cali, more water to cover, more fish. When you look at MLB roster stats and where they came from, one can determine that quality is quality, wherever.

The post about weaker competition in the north is BS.