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

Did not ruffle my feathers one single bit.  I was just trying to understand your point...or I guess now...humor.

All good.

What I know for certain...is my wife has "IT," 'Whatever It Is' as the Zac Brown Band Song says.  (And I wasn't talking about "IT" as in me  ).

Low.

You can teach a player to get better, he can teach himself through hard work and dedication, and desire to get better but you can't teach the "it" factor.

Most people don't know what "it' is.  But if you hang out enough at the ball park or watch enough baseball there is a distinct difference between those that have "it" and those that don't.

As far as pitchers being goofy, you probably will find that the most intense people on any team are the pitchers.  They sometimes have a lot of time on their hands so they find creative ways to pass that time.  Probably more creative than goofy.

But the topic was about having "it" and of those pitchers having "it", they usually are the funniest on the team. 

BTW Floridafan, DK spent a fortune this past off season preparing for upcoming season, should have told him not to bother, that all that really matters is the mph in his arm, according to what you have posted. 

Were you a pitcher in your past life because now you are being goofy!

Catcher. 

While it may be a certain age that the "he has it" reflects on the field, the biggest indicator was the distance.  When the game goes to 60/90 it becomes real baseball and those that "have it" or more of it (ability) are still left playing at the level and work harder to get it...........

2Lefties, most kids go to 60/90 at about age 13.  That's too young to decide if a young player has "it". I know my boy was only about average at that age.

One thing that I noticed about my son at the younger ages was his fire.  At age 11, he was cut off a travel team and sat a few weeks in pain, watching his younger brother play.  I am ashamed to admit at that time I thought he was too small and nothing would come of it so didn't try there for the first few weeks of the season to find him a new team.

To this day, I am haunted by what Bum, Jr. told me one day while I was sitting in the stands next to him, watching his younger brother play.

"I want to find a team, too, dad!" he said, almost desperately. 

That day, I credit his mom for talking to a coach of another team playing on an adjoining field and finding Bum, Jr. a team.  His mom, not me.  From that point on, though, I gave 200% into helping Bum, Jr. not only "find a team" but to be the best possible player he could be. 

If you want to define "it" you have to start with the desire, the fire, the I want "it".  Nothing is handed to you in this game.  It is worked at doggedly.

^ Nice post

Some players are fiery, energetic, and vocally supportive and encouraging. They're always pumped up  and the most enthusiastic about their own and others good play. They are visibly and vocally upset when things don't go their way. This wear it on the sleeve personality does not make a player a leader or mean they have "it".

It is something that people in the stands can feed off of and say, you can tell he's a player. It is also something that fans want to see in football coaches, but that's a different discussion.

On the other hand, I have seen players who were quiet and reserved, who never showed emotion on the field even when they made a great play, and seemed to fade into the pack but were leaders on the team. Because they made plays and were great players, their teammates looked up to them. Fans in the stands would not pick up on this because these players were never outwardly emotional.

For whatever reason, people like to see emotion out there for everyone to see. And when the great player also displays his emotions, that seems to help define the "it" factor for some, though I don't hold to that philosophy.

If by physical ability you include size and speed (can't coach speed...much), I agree with you. And getting those mechanics almost always mean lots of quality instruction, reps, and meaningful opportunities to build, solidify, and hone them. The former requires a sustainable drive and motivation to want to get better. The latter requires games against solid (or better) competion.

Great thread.

I say you'll know "it" when you see "it"...at any level. Whether its Johnny Bench or the Little Leaguer down the street.  Has always worked that way for me 

BTW, really nice post above by Bum. 

That was a nice post by Bum.  Goes to show that the Mom's do not get enough credit around here 

I think you can "make" kids into good hitters as long as they are somewhat athletic and have good eye sight..i think THROWING is more of an inherited skill..If your dad has a good arm and can throw usually the son can as well..mimmicking and genetics play an important part

As usual another great post by BUM. Nothing is really ever evident about "it" until after puberty IMO, and even then hard work sometimes trumps genetics. (even though genetics play a huge role)   

Great responses! A couple of common themes that I see in many of the responses are that a player has to have athletic ability and drive/desire to work hard. So, with that in mind, how much influence do you think training can have on athletic ability (hand/eye coordination, power, speed, quickness, arm strength) vs. this being something people are born with. And the same goes for drive/desire. Are there things you can do to instill desire in a player or does he have to find it on his own??

IMHO, I think "it" can be defined by a time or period. Some have "it" early, youth ball, some have "it" in high school, some have "it" in college, some have "it" in the minors and some have "it" in the ML. Some are fortunate enough to have "it" all the way through but those are the exceptions. That doesn't mean those that develope "it" later can't have the same "it". I believe though, that very few truly have "it". There are many talented players that make it all the way to the ML but they don't necessarily have "it". There aren't many Trouts or Harpers but there are many that have the talent, drive and desire to compete. Those traits are special and necessary in their own right but not necessarily "it".

I do think you can identify some that have "it" at a very young age. And many have. Some continue the journey that is a marathon and some don't. Some burn out or for reasons beyond ability can't continue. And yes, some lose "it". This has been documented and discussed many times on this board. But they definetly had "it" at a very young age.

I guess there are many ways to describe IT. Back to the original question, True or False, You either have it or you don't. IMO the answer is true!

Every person who has ever had IT, was born with IT.  However many people born with IT, will never end up with IT.  Sure some work hard, have the desire and persistence, have the competitive nature and receive great training. They develop the traits, but the truth is they are the same person and they were born with IT! Through whatever means they realized their potential or came close to doing that. That potential was always there, right from day one, even for those who didn't show it early on.

No way of knowing, but it would be very interesting to know how many were born with IT and never came to realize it. I would guess that would be a much larger group than those who actually did realize it.

Now if your description of having IT is something more than reaching your potential... For example being a perennial all star or Hall of Fame type player or winning World Series titles... That is another story!  To me any player that has the necessary talent, be it natural or developed... Has the feel and intelligence to play the game correctly... Has the instincts and toughness required... The persistence, desire and belief... Never satisfied... That player has IT! If IT were based on talent alone "TOOLS", this stuff would be much easier to figure out.

So even though I might not know how to define IT exactly... My definition would be IT is all about winning, the things you do that create winning.  That pretty much covers it all. After all, you can be the greatest player that ever lived, but if your team never wins, maybe you're missing something.  That something might be IT!

This is an interesting topic. And after reading all these posts I think justbaseball might be right. You just know it when you see it. I think he said something like that. The only problem is people don't always see things the same way.

When I was a young boy, like a lot of you out there, I was able to figure out on my own who had it.  Roberto Clemente had it.  Johnny Bench had it.  Reggie Jackson and Catfish Hunter and so on and so forth.  There were guys like Mark Belanger who I was sure didn't have it but I bet Baltimore's team that had four 20 game winners on it in the same season might have disagreed.  Is it possible to be a big leaguer and not have it?  When I was a kid, I certainly thought that and not sure that I still don't think that.  Maybe IT is just a relative term where IT changes dynamically over the course of time as physical maturity occurs and motivation levels change.

I think when people say someone has it at a very young age, oftentimes the IT being identified is physical maturity where the ones who are bigger and stronger often have an advantage at that age.      

Two examples...

1. Some players get down on themselves, and to avoid that feeling, work harder and fight through to become better. With ever strikeout, the batter goes back to the tee or the cage and works. Talent, developed with an anger from failure, and a work ethic to diminish the failures pushes the player to be great.

2. Talented player that does not live or die with every at bat. This player seems not to care, and maybe doesn't. Every failure at the plate is simply brushed off and immediately forgotten. As a result, the player never feels pressure and his talent allows him to succeed and also be great.

Player 1 will be described as having "it".

Player 2 will be considered lazy or someone with untapped potential, if only he cared more or worked harder. The reality is that player 2 might be terrible if he had the same personality as player 1.

Just throwing that out there.

A follow-on....

Golf is an interesting sport when discussing the philosophy of it...

When Tiger Woods first burst on to the scene, every grade schooler in the country could tell you he had IT.  What about now?  Does he still have it?  or does IT belong to someone like Rory MciIroy?  I have no doubts that Jack Nicklaus almost always had it until age just simply caught up with him.  I remember Tom Watson having it for a while and then inexplicably he seemed to lose it.  Maybe IT is highly tied to how much confidence one has. 

Ummm... Tiger just won 2-of-3 stroke-play tournaments he's played in this year, and heading into Bay Hill next week, where he's an 7-time winner and defending champ and he will be trying to tie Snead's record of 8-wins at a single event, I believe, YES... He still has it...

In this area it just seemed a lot of the talent started to show at 60/90 which began at 14U.  You still had alot of teams that played 54/80 even @ 14U and then everyone was at 60/90 at 15.  Thats just they way it worked around here, I wish we would have had the option to play 60/90 @ 13.

Thank God for moms balancing out the dads of this world and all the knowledge we have or think we have......  Funny how a mother can have a sense about her son's heart and desire even if we think physically he may not be there yet.  You may be a Bum but it sounds like the wife is a queen.  I married up too. Kind Regards and great thread

CD, thanks for the kudos to those of us that gave birth to the boys.  We often see things so much differently as Bum pointed out in his story. 

Your example of Tiger Woods brings up a good point, he has "it".  We may not like him but that doesn't stop him from having "it".  Lebron, Arod another good example, as well we Kobe.  Not all that likeable to some, but they stand out over their peers.

I can't define it, not sure if it really has a definition.  I don't always relate having "it" to winning.    They carry that "it" with them even after they leave their sport or they don't win anymore.   Jack Nicklaus, IMO will always have "it".  Most of the "it" guys know when it's time to quit, that is what sets them apart from the others, those that have to keep going to prove that they still have the "it'. 

In days gone by we used to say someone had a certain je ne sais quoi about them (an intangible quality that makes something distinctive).  Today we talk about the "IT" factor however to me they both have the same meaning.  

This has been an interesting thread...I'm curious who in your lifetime you feel had that je ne sais quoi (it factor) that made them special (not just sports)?  Here's a list that comes to mind for me...who would be on your list?

• Nicholson - Streep - Grant - Redford
• Aretha - Taylor - Pavarotti 
• Bench - Brooks - Yaz - Rose - Ozzie - Bonds (with or without steroids)
• James - Magic - Bird  
• Manning (Payton) - Sayers - Payton
• Woods - Nicklaus
• Warhol (threw that one in so you don't think I'm too shallow)

I think Tiger still has it. He has won 27% of every PGA event he entered. Jack won 12% of his entries against arguably much shallower fields.

Oh, I like this!

My list is...

• Nicholson - Streep - Eastwood - Eddie Murphy (yep! )
• Patsy Cline - The Rolling Stones - Kenny Chesney (after seeing him live) - Springsteen
• Bench - Morgan - Yaz - Koufax - Mays - Aaron - Bob Gibson - Jeter - and too an extent, McCovey
• Magic - Bird - Big O - Jordan - Jabbar
• Elway - Payton - Plunkett (yup) - Montana - Bart Starr
• Palmer - Niklaus - Woods
• R. C. Gorman - Shelby Foote (cultural picks) - Neil Armstrong (is there an icon like this for today's youngsters?)
• Ali
• Wooden - Sparky - Bill Walsh - Bear Bryant - Krzyzewski - Torre - Bill Hutton (my son's HS coach, and yes I'm serious)
• My parents & my wife (not trying to be weird, but they were/are real and genuine owners of "IT" to me...my kids are still trying out )

Good stuff JB...can't believe I left off Jordan and Ali.  

Great choice on Shelby Foote too...I loved hearing him speak (especially in Ken Burns works)

Great list!  I love the homage to Patsy Cline.

My point (if there was one) on Tiger Woods was clumsily made.  It seems with him, the IT he used to be is no longer there.  The one who intimidated every major tournment before it even began.  The one who seems to play like that nowadays with the swagger that Tiger used to have is Rory Mcilroy. 

More often with Tiger, we see someone cursing under his breath yelling at himself for not being what he once was.  Maybe he'll get IT back.  But I am not sure.  For the last several years, it appears like Tiger is chasing a ghost.  The IT he is after is different than the IT for the normal athlete.  His IT is to dominate and I haven't seen that from him for a long time.  Non-major tournaments do not count for his version of IT imho.  I think the standard is a relative one and in his version of IT, he is not living up to IT. 

I am sure now that I have clearly confused the point if there ever was one 

How about this as an example: Tyler Hansbrough. Averaging 6 and 4 at 15-16 minutes per game.As a college player, he had "it". Intensity, desire, fire, incredible hustle and a non-stop motor. Home fans loved him, opposing fans hated him.

As a pro, his lack of speed and athleticism prevents him from being the same kind of player. But, he is 6'9" and and still has all of those attributes. Without those attributes, would he even be in the league?

Heck, one of my neighbors told me several years ago that his son was the top rated downhill youth skier in the southeast. In comparison to those he raced against, he had "it". Of course, that didn't really mean anything. A non-competitive recreational skier from Colorado could have moved to the South and possiblyy beat him.

Sometimes"it" can only be defined according to the level you are currently at and the talent in your geographical region. If having "it" is only defined according to Mantle and Mays, and the greatest big leaguers of all time,then it's doubtful that many of us have seen anyone with"it".

Outstanding point.  I think you are saying the same thing I've been trying to say in that IT is relative.  If you say you are the best ice skater in Cuba, are you really saying anything? Perhaps you are IT if you confine the conversation to that one island.

Bringing it back to baseball, I don't think IT can be identified for all time at the youth levels as many suspect they can.  People might identify IT relative to the group at the time but we don't know if IT translates to some other time at some other level.  

There are all kinds of Tyler Hansbrough's out there who dominated in college and are no longer IT.  Conversely, there are players like Dennis Rodman and Scotty Pippen who none of us heard about when they were in college yet they had the IT that transcended their current situation.

Very enjoyable thread and thought-provoking discussion from everyone. 

I don't know maybe my feeling about who has it and who doesn't is much different from others.

If you went to a pro ballgame, out of the 25 players on each team, IMO there would be only a few that really had 'it".  They may all have the talent, the desire, but not sure if they all have what I consider, "it".  "It" is what sets you apart from others. On a LL team,  a travel team, a college team you may find some players that some think have it because they are way mature or advanced than others, or have better skills, but I don't see that as having "it".

Dennis Rodman, IMO never had "it", he was a fruitcake and still is.  I think what he did was because he needed to bring attention to himself because he lacked the "it" factor.

My opinion is that  the answer to the question, it is true, you either have it or you don't, and you don't have to be the most talented, or the highest paid to be considered to have "it". 

This brings me to a story about a ML pitcher who I first saw as a struggling freshman on his HS team.  According to many, he has "it", successful and been in the game from early on. In my opinion, he never had "it" then and he doesn't have "it" now. It's just something that sets someone apart from others, and IMO he is/was just a guy who was in the right place at the right time, but if you knew him you would agree, he doesn't have "it".

As far as Woods not having it, he was the only player here at Doral who had their own place to enter and exit.  Why, because despite his shortcomings he has "it", everyone wants a piece of him, they all wanted to see Tiger up close and personal. He reeks of "it".  Did and always will.  JMO.

Watching AI last night, all talented. But IMO, yo can spot who has "it" and who doesn't.  That may mean that the one with the most "it" factor will not be idol, think Jennifer Hudson, she never made it as AI, but she sure has "it".

"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."

I think that is true at certain levels.  If you look at a 12 year old who is built like a 16 year old and is knocking balls over a 200 ft fence and blowing guys away on the mound, sometimes it looks like they have IT when maybe they're just playing on the wrong field.  Then you have a kid like Bum Jr. that has IT but their size and physical development keep it from really showing for a few of years. A have a couple of boys that fell into that category as well.  Similarly, older one was was cut from his 13 yr old travel team.  High school coach told us he almost cut him as a freshman and sophomore just because of his size. He was All Conference as a Junior and All-State and Player of the Conference as a senior.  He is now playing for a Top 20 D1 program.

I don't think there is one age where you can tell if a kid has IT.  They may show it as a 13-14 yeard old or maybe not until college or later.  (Another local kid tried out his freshman and sophomore years for his mid-major college team and didn't make it.  Transferred and played D2 his junior year and got drafted this past June and signed.)

Yes, great point Stafford! If “it” is relative, then the definition will clearly change depending on the competitive situation the athlete is put in.

Your point makes me want to further define “it”. I think when most people talk about “it,” they only have a vague idea of what “it” is (myself included).

So, in the interest of narrowing the discussion, I would personally define “it” (if I must), as those athletes, who at their peak (let’s say 25-28, but could vary by sport), have the ability to be amongst the top 2% in their particular position. Why 2%? Because, when I look at the NCAA statistics (http://www.beyondusports.com/college-athletes-pro/) that outline what percentage of high school and college athletes will ever go pro in their sport, it seems to be a good round number to shoot for to potentially compete at the highest level in your sport.

I do realize that there are many with just as much potential as the top 2% who never live up to that potential.  In a sense, I guess you could say they too have “it” but never fully tapped “it” (whether by choice or lack of know how).

Feel free to challenge my definition or comment on whether or not you can spot “it” at an early age or manufacture “it” through hard work.

TPM, you bring up another point with Rodman. I know he was a self - promoter and antagonist and a weird dude. But.... nobody rebounded like that guy and he was a great defensive player. If you just look at rebounding, he was "it". No one else compares during his time. There's not a coach in college or the NBA that wouldn't give anything to have that type of player who isn't concerned about scoring but only about rebounding and defense.

If you are really great at one facet of the game but average in others, can you have "it"? Which MLB hall of famer had 28 home runs and a career batting average of .262...... Ozzie Smith. Did he have "it"?

More good points.  Not only do you have to define IT but then you have to determine relative to what.  A fairly involved analysis when you think about it.  I mentioned Rodman for more than one reason.  PG mentioned the concept of winning with the trait of having IT and I agree with him.  Rodman won two titles with Detroit and won three more with Chicago.  Not many guys walking around with five rings.  Of course, if we compare him to Bill Russell who has eleven rings, then maybe no team player on the planet has IT other than Russell - assuming we narrow the definition sufficiently enough. 

A follow-on to this is Yogi Berra.  Not many people ever mention the guy, a short man who by today's standards probably doesn't measure up in tools.  I believe he won 10 rings and 3 AL MVP's.  Did he have it?

Dude, he's been yelling at himself and cursing since I saw him win the 1991 U.S. Junior Amateur Championship at Bay Hill in 1991 at age 15 - the youngest winner ever... He's always been a maestro/idiot-savant with a golf club, and so focused - even at that age you could tell...

As I read the posts, I am thinking of my 30 years of Goodwill Series and the Area Code games and our alumni.

When we "found" Albert Pujols, no scout recommend him. I placed him my 900 Team.

Did he have "it" at the time? Maybe the Cardinal scout thought so! All it takes is one person or scout to believe in you as long as you believe in yourself.

Josh Beckett arrived with his personal catcher and a support group of 5 and went on talk shows in Southern California. The night he pitched over 300 radar guns clocked his 97 mph. However, few scouts knew the 2nd pitcher that Friday night at Blair Field.

This was player also not recommended, except by himself on the phone two months earlier asking to be placed on a team. He said "I have the best curve ball in America"

I said because you called personally, I will pitch you behind Becket on marque night.

The rest is history, Bobby Bradley was also a 1st round draft. The pro scouts all agreed. Yes, he had the best curve ball in America.

Years ago, when I played in an exhibition game against Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Ernie Banks, Bob Gibson, Don Newcombe, my only concern was survival. Every player had "it".

Bob

Watching the Cards play the Marlins just now, the Redbird announcer on MLB Network said, "He has the LOOK of a big leaguer." To which his partner responded, "That's important."

I recall a scout once saying that when he watches a team get off the bus, he is often able to pick out the stud of the team, just by how he looks and carries himself.

When I think about "it" these are the things that come to mind for me. Clearly there's so much more, but I'll go on record agreeing with those who say, some people just have IT.

it is difficult to get better in a large degree if the player  has minimal ability to begin with

This sounds a lot like the "good face" reference in Moneyball. Scouts searching for a guy who looks like a player and has a good looking face. There probably is something to this, so to speak. If player A is 6'4" and good looking with an athletic frame and can play, and player B is 5'11" with average looks and body, but can play, then they are not on the same plane is most eyes.

Player A will get more opportunities and will have to play himself out of a position or order in the lineup due to his potential. If he has talent, he'll make it as he will be given more opportunities to improve his fielding, both in practice and games, and more opportunities to get his swing going by batting at the top of the order.

Player B will have to earn everything with his play and practice.

There is a good chance that Player A will be more sought after, even if it is clear that Player B is a better player. When the two go to a showcase or recruiters or scouts are watching them play, all eyes will be drawn to Player A. And if player A performs well (meaning above average) and Player B performs great, there is good chance that player A will be more sought after due to his potential.

For this reason, our Area Code games for 17 years were set to 6 days so the scouts could observe a player in infield practice, warming up, BP, running, walking or running on the field; asking his parents or his agent for the water bottle and instructions how to bat or to pitch.

Pro scouts observe everything "off and on" the field. They will chat with other scouts, the agents and college coaches to confirm their evaluations.

As I stated above the 5'10" Bobby Bradley was know in Florida but not Nationally.

We average 300 scouts for the event and Bobby had 2 "outings". After the 1st outing, he stop by my chair and said "I did not do good, watch me Friday night".

Bobby- BELIEVED IN HIMSELF and trusted his natural talents.

When we travel Internationally with 10 pro scouts, they now can evaluate the player in 12 games, living away from home with a host family. No assumptions, but 15 days of observations and then reports to the Scouting office.

Bob