Ever notice how some posters tend to use ONE example to prove a point.
For instance they might use Greg Maddux or David Eckstein as examples to prove their point. Is this promoting a false hope in some players and their parents? What exactly does using those examples prove?
#1. That it can be done?
#2. That anyone or everyone can do it?
#3. That only Madddux and Eck can do it?
I think #3 is closer to being right than #1 and #2 is way out in left field.
Anytime a poster says "A good example of that" and then they name one well known phenomenal ball players that has proven the odds wrong to substantiate their story I want to come back with 10,000 names of those that tried the same thing and failed --- The only problem is their names are never known. Oh well ---
Original Post