Question for the Coaches

I would want a guy who has good attitude and character (not sure if that counts as two). To me that is the hardest part to teach and coach when we get them at the high school level. I can teach a lot of people how to throw, hit, field etc... but when you get them at the early / mid teenage years there are a lot of attitudes ingrained already.

I'm not saying it's impossible to teach good attitude and character but it's tougher. If you surround people around each other with good attitudes and character then it feeds on each other and can take that bad attitude and turn it around. But if you got one or small group of good attitudes surrounded by bad attitudes then it's very tough to overcome that.

Coaching is fun when you take a kid who is a yes sir / no sir type person and improve upon their skills because you know that kid is listening and learning. Coaching isn't as fun when you got a talented kid who just does things half....rearend.

No doubt I'm choosing good attitude / character.

Agree 2709... good answer. You could also throw in synonyms like 'hustle' or 'coachable'

Now if you want physical attribute I'd say ARMS. The teams that scatter arms all over the field like the Soviets in the 70's are very difficult to beat.

I agree with the above in terms of character of the player---as for a physical tool I like speed first before anything else---you can do untold things with a speed team

I'll take the ability to lead. Chances are if he's a leader he has quality character. I've seen kids of great character who are too quiet to lead. In order to lead he has to have enough talent to be respected enough to be followed.

If the question is about talent I'll take one player description ... five tool player.

ADD (+) one... selfLESSness. The mother of ALL cures! GED10DaD

A player that has the ability and true concern to make guys around him play better. Very few true leaders out there anymore but a perfect example of a leader is Tim Tebow. He leads on and off the field.

A legit 5 tool player. The way that is just one attribute is that the attribute is talent.

Character above all else. In fact, players trying out for my team know that I won't take a talented player who is deficient in grades and ESPECIALLY if he's had to visit the principal's office for a behavioral issue.

1) Character
2) GPA
3) Talent

In that order.

quote:

A legit 5 tool player.

Do you think most college players are legit 5 tool players? just curious as to what you think is why I ask.

I would have to say no. Rarely will you find Power at the plate combined with speed for one thing. I would think that 3 tools would find you in a good position.

They are very rare. And you will find those that truly are rarely end up in college.

Thanks for the replys.That was what I was thinking..

I like this breakdown by OldSlugger back in February:


"1. Can you run faster than the average player? Can you run faster than the average player at your position? Athlete.

2. Do your outfield throws carry better than the other guys? Do they get to their destination quicker than the other average guys? Are the throws more consistently accurate?

3. Can you deliver the sweetspot consistently, on time, and can you hit to all fields when necessary better than the average player? Do you recognize a pitch better than the average hitter?

4. Can you drive the ball over the fence in all fields better than the average power hitter? Do you just have "pull power"?

5. Do you take better routes to the ball than the average player? Is your footwork better than the average player?"

"If it was that easy, everyone would do it. Rake the Ball"

COMPETITIVENESS -- no doubt about it.

fanofgame,
I doubt that there are many legit 5 tool players and it would be very rare for one to get past being drafted early in the first round to go to college.

I am basing my answer on what it takes to be a winning team. I will take physical talent- period! Sorry, you can't teach talent. All of the other stuff is great. I want hard work, character, etc. The reality is that it's easier to lead when you can do it better than anybody else.

How many guys in the big leagues (that are leaders) can't play well? Players, as a rule, follow the best players.

Inspire me , inspire your team mates , make those around you better. Sometimes its the best player on the team. Sometimes its a guy that is so talented and so confident that everyone believes they are going to win because he is on their team. And sometimes its a guy that has such a determination to compete , such a tremendous work ethic that he inspires everyone around him to try and reach his level. He makes everyone around him a better player.

I have had guys that because they were so talented but so lazy they brought everyone else around them down. And I have had guys that were not very talented but they inspired everyone else to work harder and to compete as hard as they could. There are many ways to lead. Its easier to lead when you are very talented if you are a leader. And its also a killer when that very talented player leads them in the other direction.

Matt Harrison comes to mind when I think of a kid that was extremely talented but also had a tremendous work ethic. He led by example. He made everyone else around him a better player. And he was so quiet , he hardly ever talked. He is in the ML's now. And then there were guys like Stanley Smith. A guy that worked so hard , stayed after practice to get extra work in. Cheered from the dugout all the time. Busted his butt in practice everyday. Called guys on Sunday to come hit on their own. He finally made the starting line up his sr year. But he led the team in many ways for two years. When Stanley spoke , everyone listened. He made everyone else around him a better player and made us a better team.

So to me I want a guy with a burning desire to compete. A burning desire to be the best he can be. And a guy that leads by example. These type of guys make everyone else around them better.

ncball, I really like reading your views on this site and NorCal.
Usually, I am on board 100%.
This time I have a bit of a different view.
For me, in high school and in Milb, talent is it because talent dominates in high school and, unfortunately, heart, character, hard work all the intangibles don't seem to light up the scouting reports at 3am when the coaches do them in Milb.
But, in college, I have a different view. My experience is that the top college programs all have talent. The differences in talent levels at the top programs just isn't that great.
In college, I think leadership, heart, hard work, that guy who sets the work ethic and mental toughness, especially for the freshman makes the difference.
I have seen this over, and over and over again in college baseball where seniors, especially, either set the tone early, everyone follows, the freshman really mature/assimilate quickly and the season is all about winning, great wins and post-season play, or they don't and the season is a flop.
Perhaps, for me, the very best recent examples are the 2008 Stanford and UC Davis teams and the leadership and mental toughness that came from a few of their players.

In my community, the coaches just chose the players with the hottest moms.

Coach May said what I was feeling and said it very well. Only thing I can add to what he said is that some of my teams who had very talented players underachieved because they lacked that little extra. And some of my more successful teams weren't the most talented but they did have that little extra.

If you can get that talented player who has that something extra you can move mountains.

A guy who is not afraid of hard work and does not let others around him become mediocre.

The win and loss record does not matter as much as the ability to be true to the game. I would take a team of kids who have played the game right over a winning team with selfish kids who did not have integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
In my community, the coaches just chose the players with the hottest moms.

You have some hot moms in your neck of the woods?...I guess if you like the big, strong burly type...LOL!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
ncball, I really like reading your views on this site and NorCal.
Usually, I am on board 100%.
This time I have a bit of a different view.
For me, in high school and in Milb, talent is it because talent dominates in high school and, unfortunately, heart, character, hard work all the intangibles don't seem to light up the scouting reports at 3am when the coaches do them in Milb.
But, in college, I have a different view. My experience is that the top college programs all have talent. The differences in talent levels at the top programs just isn't that great.
In college, I think leadership, heart, hard work, that guy who sets the work ethic and mental toughness, especially for the freshman makes the difference.
I have seen this over, and over and over again in college baseball where seniors, especially, either set the tone early, everyone follows, the freshman really mature/assimilate quickly and the season is all about winning, great wins and post-season play, or they don't and the season is a flop.
Perhaps, for me, the very best recent examples are the 2008 Stanford and UC Davis teams and the leadership and mental toughness that came from a few of their players.

infielddad- I said talent on purpose. It's obvious, I know, but people are fooling themselves if they think they will win at a high level with nine character kids who have no talent! If you don't have talent, you won't win- period. I think we are all fooling ourselves if we say talent isn't the first criteria.

Now, I will use the analogy of what it takes to pitch at a high level. The first criteria is velocity. That is a prerequisite to being successful at a high level. One you have the required velocity, that becomes about number four on being a good pitcher (behind location, movement, and change of speeds).

It's the same thing as talent. Once you have the required talent, that takes a back seat to work ethic, character, etc.

Stanford was good in 2008 because they had a first round hitter in Jason Castro (a little bragging- one of three from our club) and hit .299 as a team. They could also really pitch and had a veteran staff. Davis won because they had some talented players that hit .316 as a team. When those guys left after last year, Stanford dropped 20 points on their team BA as well as every experienced pitcher besides Storen and UC Davis crapped the bed because they lost all their talent.

Bottom line- You have to have talent. It's what you do with that talent that dictates whether you will be champions.

So, if it is all talent, what about UCLA. Tons of talent. Their W/L's, in my view, have no correlation with the results.
How about Cal? They have guys drafted left and right, and high. You know this for sure. Does not correlate with results.
I happen to have a different view on Stanford.
I agree Castro was terrific. But someone reached down and got the freshman at SS and 3B to step up.
Davis didn't win because of Castro. Davis was a stud. Davis willed them to win. He brought every ounce of mental toughness that said, for start after start after start, that they would not lose.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
So, if it is all talent, what about UCLA. Tons of talent. Their W/L's, in my view, have no correlation with the results.
How about Cal? They have guys drafted left and right, and high. You know this for sure. Does not correlate with results.
I happen to have a different view on Stanford.
I agree Castro was terrific. But someone reached down and got the freshman at SS and 3B to step up.
Davis didn't win because of Castro. Davis was a stud. Davis willed them to win. He brought every ounce of mental toughness that said, for start after start after start, that they would not lose.

infielddad- I didn't mean Erik Davis. I meant UC Davis. I'm a huge Erik Davis fan- combines talent and guts (and another alum of our club). Please read my post carefully regarding talent.

It STARTS with talent. What you do with the talent dictates if you become champions. A talented team which lacks heart and direction can certainly underachieve. An untalented team with heart and desire have no chance to win a championship at the highest level. Once you have the required talent level (high), it's what you do with it to that will measure whether you will be a champion or not. But, you have to have talent!

I'm not in a position to comment about the schools you mentioned (I'm sure you understand).

quote:

I'm not in a position to comment about the schools you mentioned

Sorry, I should have recognized that.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

quote:

I'm not in a position to comment about the schools you mentioned

Sorry, I should have recognized that.

infielddad- I enjoy talking with you because you "get it". I brought up talent on purpose to kind of shock people. In order to win, you have to have talent to start. Now, you have to surround that talent with guys who know how to win. Talent alone will not get it done. You need those guys who are great role players.

Conversely, average talent alone will NEVER get it done. They are simply going to be over-matched. Here's another analogy- DeLaSalle High School in Concord, CA won something like 145 straight football games in the 1990's and early 2000's. They were clearly the top team in the nation and had some unbelievably talented players like DJ Williams, Maurice Drew, Kevin Simon, etc. About 8-9 years ago, the admissions process changed and they were no longer getting amazing talent. The coaching staff was the same and they instilled the same character and values in the present students as they did the students who won national championships. DeLaSalle is still playing against national caliber teams. The result is that they are no longer beating those teams. they sometimes come close because they are so well-coached and possess tremendous character and work ethic. The fact is that a 180 lb. kid who runs a 4.8 in the 40 is not going to tackle a 200 lb. kid who runs a 4.5 in the 40. Just not gonna happen.

I know, I know, football is different than baseball. That said, give me a 90 MPH guy with a hammer over an 82 MPH guy who competes.

I was trying to stay on line with Itsinthegames question when he asked if you could have one primary attribute of a player that you believed would be the foundation of your team.

Now if your talking about what is the single most important thing you need to win then its talent.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach_May:
I was trying to stay on line with Itsinthegames question when he asked if you could have one primary attribute of a player that you believed would be the foundation of your team.

Now if your talking about what is the single most important thing you need to win then its talent.

Coach- I think if he framed the question by saying what kind of mental attribute, I would say the ability to be a great teammate by inspiring others. I went to the obvious choice- talent.

I'm going to be the contrarian now. If you want to win the World Series, who do you take-
Barry Bonds- Ridiculous talent, never won WS
Derek Jeter- Good talent, proven WS champion

You can have all the Talent in the World on One Team.

And Have One Bad Coach Ruin the Whole Freakin Thing.


Yours Truely, theEH

quote:

Originally posted by theEH:
You can have all the Talent in the World on One Team.

And Have One Bad Coach Ruin the Whole Freakin Thing.


Yours Truely, theEH

Conversely, you can have the best coach in the world and he will never win if he doesn't have the talent!

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
In my community, the coaches just chose the players with the hottest moms.

Actually, that's the tie breaker when two kids have equal talent.

The "GLM picks" (Good Looking Mom) in our drafts usually came after the talent thinned out.

When a single coach heard about a single GLM he could waste a first round pick on the mom.

fillsfan- You have a player on the Phillies that is the perfect example of a guy you want to start your team with and that's Jimmy Rollins.

I was fortunate enough to coach him in the mid-90's and it was the biggest pleasure I have ever had. I've been fortunate to have about 60 pro guys, including 20 big-leaguers and 10 first rounders.

That said, nobody could match Jimmy as a player and a teammate. He was incredibly talented, first and foremost. From there, you combine that he had an amazing work ethic. Next, he was the smartest player I've ever coached. Finally, he was incredibly charismatic and an unbelievable teammate. There's a reason the Phillies won the World Series. Ask the Phillies and they will tell you that Rollins was the guy that led the way.

ncball,
There is no doubt that Jimmy is the catalyst for the Phillies. When he was struggling earlier in the year (hitting around .200 through May) the Phils were inconsistent. Once his BA started to climb the Phils started playing much better. He is a pleasure to watch. Watching him and Victorino run out triples is a lot of fun. They both hit a 4th gear just as they past 2B.

Rollins plays with a swagger that most opposing fans dislike but hometown fans love. He struts around with a constant smile on his face. He plays with a lot of confidence, which I believe is half the battle in baseball. Talent + confidence = success. Maybe not always to NL MVP status but they go hand in hand.

It's hard to believe that he has been with the Phillies for about 8 years now.

You also had Pat Burrel in your program didn't you? I guess the Phillies scout in your area likes your players.

quote:

Originally posted by fillsfan:
ncball,
There is no doubt that Jimmy is the catalyst for the Phillies. When he was struggling earlier in the year (hitting around .200 through May) the Phils were inconsistent. Once his BA started to climb the Phils started playing much better. He is a pleasure to watch. Watching him and Victorino run out triples is a lot of fun. They both hit a 4th gear just as they past 2B.

Rollins plays with a swagger that most opposing fans dislike but hometown fans love. He struts around with a constant smile on his face. He plays with a lot of confidence, which I believe is half the battle in baseball. Talent + confidence = success. Maybe not always to NL MVP status but they go hand in hand.

It's hard to believe that he has been with the Phillies for about 8 years now.

You also had Pat Burrel in your program didn't you? I guess the Phillies scout in your area likes your players.

fillsfan- Yes Pat did but he was drafted out of Miami. Swagger, belief, cocky-confidence. Those are great things!

There have been some great posts here and I don't think you can truly say anybody is wrong in what they think. But the thing that strikes me is that with all these posts it should make you realize how tough winning is. There is no surefire plan for success. Good coaches find ways to win and mold character of the players. Bad coaches won't. Good players find ways to maximize the talent they have and bad players won't.

It's what makes having the season a lot of fun.

That's tough for me. I would have to go with:

positive attitude VS. hard work

Hard work can take a team far and makes it fun to play when you are working hard and doing good.

On the other hand if you have a team with a positive attitude/energy, even if you are losing, it is still a happy environment.

I think I'm going to have to choose:

POSITIVE ATTITUDE/ENERGY

My experience with positive energy within a team speaks louder than any post. I remember the most positive team I have ever been on. (We made it to the World Series juco). I really believe that we made it that far for a combination of reasons but the biggest reason is that we wanted to and we were POSITIVE that we were going to. It wasn't a question if. So if we lost a game, we kept our head up. It was weird. Almost like we knew it was going to happen and nothing bothered us.

Has anyone else had an experience like this?

Gotta have talent to win consistently...
also need a coach that knows how to recognize and utilize talent.

Talented teams are fun to coach but teams that have character tend to be special in most coaches' minds.