TRUE or FALSE? You either have "it" or you don't

sit at a little league game   and listen to all the LLdads saying this

As far as athleticism goes, I believe that you can tell from an eary age who has "it". But, heart, and a love for the game will not be apparent until the middle of High School. If the player finds nothing distracts him from the game to the extent that he fails to prepare and practice, then you know who has "it".

Pitcher can be on another planet. I think only of overweight kids that grow and get lean and have a cannon for an arm.

TRhit, not sure I understand your answer. Is that at True of False vote? I would think that in Little League you would hear very few dads saying this (I could be wrong), as many of them think their son will eventually be great if he just works hard enough...and that's an important part of the discussion...can you work hard enough to get "it" if you don't currently have "it"?

I know this is an exception but I like to remember that Larry Bowa didn't make his high school team. He tried out and made the team at Sacramento City College and went on to win 2 gold gloves in MLB and was an all-star 5 times. Mark Buehrle (4 gold gloves, 4 time all-star) got cut from his high school team twice. So I would say in some cases a player has "it" and shows it but some of the glorious exceptions show that that's not always the case until a much later age.

Great examples. I wonder if they already had the athleticism that @floridafan mentions above, and they just had to develop the baseball skill, or if they were mediocre athletes who developed both athleticism and skill?

I think "It" can come and go. But having "it" at later ages is far better than at early ages.

 

I think "it" for age 6-10 YOs means kids with innate eye-hand coordination such that they can field, throw, and (eventually) pitch. This kind of "it" can vanish as other kids become bigger/stonger/faster. But a kid that really can play ball this young is likely to retain that innate athleticism, but they could be destined to be small and skinny or slow and tubby.

 

10-13u baseball, "it" usually means the kids that are particularly big/strong for their age. You know, the ones that can hit a HR on a LL field with less than solid contact. Or that can throw 10 mph faster than most kids, etc. Lots of kids that were 14YO in size at 12 YO stop growing earlier and get passed-by with kids with better skillsets when they sprout.

 

By 14-15u, size still matters but puberty probably has leveled the size issue quite a bit, but "it" has a lot more to do with past instruction, advanced/solid mechanics, coachability, and playing to their innate strengths, such as speed, batting power, arm strength etc. Kids can lose "it" when others work harder and are more motivated to get better.

 

I expect that "it" at 16-18u means really excelling at some aspect of the game (catcher, pitcher, batting), or better yet--being exceptional at multiple aspects of the game. And that comes from physicality, coachability, and a desire to constantly improve.

 

Beyond 18, having "it" is probably tied to having truly exceptional physical abilities/capabilities, and by late teens, you either have it or you don't...

I think its pretty funny to look back at the LL and Babe Ruth days and remember all the players with "it" and how most of them never even played in HS.  My son as a 12 year old was the 5th pick for the all-star team and the only other guy to play in college was the 12th pick.....so I am pretty sure you have no chance of finding it in LL, same for 13-15.

 

I don't think you have any reasonable chance of find a kid with "it" until they hit the minor leagues and stand out against top competition.  Having it requires the ability to hit 95 mph fastballs or to throw at least 90. 

 

 

Excellent post @Batty67! It does seem that often times kids who have "it" at a younger age don't seem to keep "it" and that various skills allow players to be effective at various levels. I love how you've defined the important skills for each level of play.

Mike Piazza. 

There are kids who play baseball, and then there are baseball players. By this I mean that playing baseball is a passion. They can't imagine not playing.

 

There are kids who play baseball who have a lot of talent. There are baseball players with less talent (but still some) who will pass up the other kids as the years go by.

 

And to me, that passion is "it", and you can't tell until the going gets tough. Every player hits the wall eventually. The ones with "it" dig under, climb over or bust through the wall.

 

The others play la crosse .

It should be obvious that every player that has reached the top HAD IT. The problem is figuring out who has it and who doesn't.  Young kids change in every way, they develop at different rates.  The HAVE IT part doesn't always show up at the same time.  

 

This is what makes scouting so difficult.  This is why you sometimes see kids go undrafted and not get a lot of college interest become first round picks out of college. That same kid had it in high school, but no one recognized it. After all, it is the same person and the most important part of scouting is predicting how good someone will be in the future (projection). In other words, predicting who has it or doesn't have it or who will develop it.

 

Other than the most obvious talent, no one has ever completely "mastered" the art of predicting the future. That said, it is easier figuring out who has it than it is figuring out who doesn't have it. Many of the have nots end up with IT.

 

Not sure if any of that makes sense, but it is the best I can do at explaining my opinion on the subject.

Sort of depends on what you define as the next level for having "it".

 

For instance, I know of one kid was very good in middle school as a pitcher/hitter and good as a fielder. He was the same in 14/15U and as a high school j.v. player as a freshman. Is now in his second year on the varsity in high school and can't catch up to the pitching he is facing.Seems like he peaked at the j.v. level though it seemed as if he would become a top varsity player.

 

I have seen others who were dominating at 12/13 but it was because they were physically larger and more mature than the kids they played against (seen it in other sports too). Seemed like they had "it" but they really didn't. I know of a few who haven't grown since age 13 while others were just starting.

 

Some kids are studs from the get go, others fizzle out despite them being predicted "to have it".

Some people succeed based on talent alone that do little to work on developing their potential. Others are grinders who out hustle/work others even though they are not blessed with tons of talent. Of course most probably fall in the middle. I would never think even the most gifted of scouts would say such a thing unless they were talking about elite players destined for the HOF barring injury. Instead they would be astute enough to know that everyone is different, will develop at different times and to different degrees.

Heck Michael Jordon was cut from his HS team, so just imagine if some know it all said he "didn't have it".

 

`

When I think of "it". I think of something that comes very easy to that person. Whether it be a sport or another hobby in life. Something that is fluid and easy to that person from early on. I remember early on my son at age 3 having a very nice swing. I told my wife, your going to think I'm biased but he's going to be good. To this day (15u) he has been a standout player with natural fluid ability. It still comes easy to him.Where he goes from here, I'm not sure, but in response to this post, I would think a great majority will have "it" at a very early age

Michael Jordan was never cut from his high school team, geez how long can that go on, he was sent from varsity to jv, not really "cut", makes a great story though. Still had 2 teams skip him in the draft.

 

I know basketball is different, but Dennis Rodman was short in high school, around 5'9" and grew to 6'7" by the time he was 20 and became a college player. His story is unique.

 

David Robinson was under the Naval Academy's max height restriction of 6'8" as a high school senior, but continued to grow to 7'1" once he got to to college.

 

I know a guy who was 5'10" 170 as a high school senior. Was 6'2" at 21 and 6'5" by 23 years of age. Never played basketball and now, at 330lbs, looks like a retired NFL player even though he never played football either. Some guys just develop later in life.

Mark Buehrle was cut from his high school team as a sophomore and he's been in the show for over a decade.  Someone else mentioned Mike Piazza and he's another great example.  He was drafted by the Dodgers in the 62nd round as a favor to his family, who I believe Tommy LaSorda knew.  

Oh yeah, just remembered another example of a guy I went to high school with. This guy was kind of small and not really athletic in high school. Somehow, he ended up in Montana or Idaho and ended up on the football team of a small college. He didn't play in high school or middle school for that matter. I don't know if he had ever played. Turned out to be a starting wide receiver. I guess he had "it" but no one at home knew.

 

Sometimes having "it" is strongly related to your ability in comparison to those in your geographical region.

To me, the “it” factor is the ability to tap into something rare that others don’t seem to manifest at the same level…maybe it’s a passion, maybe it’s a work ethic, maybe it’s a quiet confidence, or maybe it’s an intangible that you just can’t put your finger on...maybe “it” is not something you can define, but it’s something you just know it when you see “it”. 

Call me cynical, but if there is an "It" -- personally, I am of the belief that "It" is the combination of some visible tangibles & more important intangibles that are not readily seen -- I suspect that most the people who are convinced they can spot It, don't have a real clue what it is. Hence, the reason for inventing beer & bar stools.

This is a pretty neat discussion with many great perspectives already.

As many of these posts illustrate, "it" in baseball isn't always something we "know when we see it."

My perspective is baseball is a game of repetition, coupled with a game of adjustment, coupled with some unique mental elements, all put into the body, and heart, of a talented athlete.

What seems to make "it" so hard to define, scout and quantify is players mature in both their mental and physical approach from LL, to HS, to college and beyond.

Especially beyond HS, my view is "it," for the majority of players is the combination of the ability to do the repetition in a way which improves the skill everyday, coupled with the mental ability to never be satisfied, while also being able to make the adjustments in what is done repetitively to be successful as the level of competition improves.

Both Willie Mays and Micky Mantle, for instance, struggled mightily, for awhile, in that last adjustment period from AAA to MLB.There was little doubt each had the "it" if the "it" was talent.

In my perspective, what make it so hard to identify the "it," as PG  illustrates, is the mental side of that ability to adjust when velocity is 80mph, to 85 mph, to 90mph, to 95mph, to 95mph coupled with movement and command. Repetition alone won't get a hitter there.  Talent alone won't get a hitter there. Combine talent, repetition and the mental ability to slow the game and adjust...that is "it" for me in baseball.  I think "it" changes and develops every step of the way. Often times "it" is coached and confidence develops but there are  times "it" is impeded by some coaching, for sure.

In the vast majority of players, I just don't think we can tell if they have "it." . Before college, I think someone with skill can select the few at the very top with the type of talent to be "it," but they  cannot identify factors which get measured in other ways, including the ability to adjust, to know if that talent translates to "it."

 

Can you explain what you mean by the above? 

IMO, the most athletic players on the team usually ARE the pitchers who may also be the ss, and the catcher, and the DH, as well as play most other positions.

 

Very few players really show "it" at an early age in physical appearance, but sometimes someone can pick them out by their uncanny sixth sense to understand the game at an early age.

 

Just being able to throw the ball well, play position well or hit the ball well doesn't mean that the player has 'it".  There are other things (as mentioned above) that go into possessing "it".

 

Not all players have "it", IMO. Examples might be that Bryce Harper has it, so does Trout, Stanton, Cabrerra, Justin Verlander, David Price, Cano have "it" too.  They definetly stand out above their peers.

 

I guess it is all in ones definition as to having "it" means to an individual.

 

 

 

Trust me when I say you didn't offend me with that comment.  But at the same time, I really don't get it either?

 

Virtually every pitcher at a high level (college and above) I know was a very athletic and good baseball player (and other sports) at the HS level and below.

I think there are exceptions that are noteable... I do not mean to offend either... But if you are big and have a power arm, they dont really care about your 60 time, your quickness with a DP, or your ability to lay off sliders.

 

I am sure you are correct that the majority of pitchers are atheletic. But I do not believe that is a pre requisite as it generally is with position players.

 

I thought everyone knew pitchers are goofy, lol!

Actually we have seen several pitchers that would be considered over weight.  Some of them, due to other things, project very well.   You see the arm action and the athleticism and a lot of "baby fat" and you try to invision that player without the baby fat.

 

Then you see the competitiveness and willingness to do what it takes and BINGO, the fat kid haes IT in your opinion.

 

The very first time I saw Chris Perez, he was a soft bodied kid with a very good arm, probably about 14 years old.  I liked him a lot as a "Backward" projection" type. meaning he was going to be a big boy and a strong boy without such a "soft" body. Then he played for a team that won the Big Jupiter tournament later on. Chris pitched well in the tournament helping to get his team to the championship game. The catchers on that team could not stay and play in the championship game. Chris Perez told the coach that he would catch that game. He caught a couple of the hardest throwing pitchers in the country that game doing a great job and helped his team win the championship. That was the moment I know Chris Perez had IT!

 

In the interest of honesty, this was one time I was proven correct. There have been other times when I was dead wrong.  But when a pitching prospect already committed to Miami, wants to catch a whole game in order to win a game, that might not be smart, but it sure is impressive. It told me a lot about that kid!

 

 

Do you realize how athletic a pitcher has to be to pitch?  Try it in 100 degree heat. 

 

Pitchers have their own set of athletic rules to follow. And not every guy that is big and throws hard has "it". Either does the big skinny kid either.  Just as those that can hit may or may not have "it" either.

 

Most ML pitchers ARE good hitters, but ML hitters can't pitch for meal money.

Goofy?

Baseball is a game where "it" is simply different for each player. At one age a kids "it" is enough to set him apart. And at another age that same "it" will not. You can dominate a game with your arm. Your bat. Your speed. And at another time and level of the game not have "it." There are so many factors at play here there is simply no way to really know until it all plays out.

There is a certain level of ability that makes it clear by the Jr Sr year of HS. On one end of that spectrum there is the Josh Hamilton type and the kid who simply clearly has no tools.

In between that there is simply what you can clearly see and what you can't see. Heart, determination, passion, work ethic, perseverance, genetic make up that can always develop late and defy past experiences. The light going off. The light coming on.

Confidence coming and confidence going. Being in the right place at the right time with the right people and being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people. "It" is so many things. And for some only one that makes the difference. Experience can tell you a kid has potential at an early age. It can also tell you a kid is a long shot at an early age. But it can never tell you for sure if he has "it" or doesn't.

As long as your in the game you have a shot to have it.

This is really all I am saying...

 

Geesh!

I still don't get "it".

IMO, most players at the ML level are average, they all don't have the "it" factor.

 

Again, it might be in the interpretation.

 

FWIW, coaches and teams DO care about pitchers specific skills, just because their skill isn't measured in 60 time, the DP, or the ability to lay off sliders does not mean they aren't athletic. 

floridafan,

Pablo Sandoval would be  illustration #1 on why I come down on the other side of your comments.

I'm not sure that you can practice and prepare your way to having "it".  I know of a lot of kids that put in an incredible amount of time and loved the game but the truth was they did the work just to keep their head above water.  Does't mean these weren't great kids...I respected them more than most however I wouldn't say they had... "it". 

 

As for the pitchers comment...while I will give you that there are some rather robust pitchers out there (some pretty big DH's and corner infielders too), I would bet dollars to donuts that most HS pitchers could hold there own at any position until the game moved them to the mound exclusively.  Pretty broad strokes there floridafan...can you tell I'm a pitchers dad? 

 

There are only two things you can't teach: desire and physical ability. If a player has the desire, the mechanics, and the physical ability, he will go very far. If a player has desire and mechanics, he can go very far.

 

You can't teach "it' either.

"It" is a combination of many factors. You can teach portions of "it."

I guess I can understand why someone would say that.  But to me, it means we have different definitions of "it." 

I guess you all don't understand my humor...

 

And we were takling about "it". My point was that some pitcher have "it"even when they do not look like they have "it".

 

The humor goes to the hitter/pitcher duel, and hitters at times remark that pitchers are goofy. All in fun here guys and gals. I did not mean to ruffle any pitcher parent feathers! LOL!

TRUE... It athlete with "it" is the one head and shoulders above everyone else. No matter what sport he plays, he's better or one of the best at it. Can learn very quickly anything new. That's what "it" is.