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...