Is becoming a superior ball player a matter of applying accepted superior techniques, or is it a matter of repeatedly applying techniques, superior or not, that work for the individual?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Most "superior" ballplayers are born not made---their talent is just refined as they advance
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
Most "superior" ballplayers are born not made---their talent is just refined as they advance
All players are born. LOL. But seriously, I get the feeling that what you’re saying is, the capacity to be a superior player is entirely genetic. If I’m wrong, I apologize.
It is just my opinion --why are you apologizing for anything?
You got the feeling correctly Sir !!!
You got the feeling correctly Sir !!!
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
It is just my opinion --why are you apologizing for anything?
Because I’ve been threatened with expulsion by a moderator for daring to question old timers.
quote:You got the feeling correctly Sir !!!
Well, although I was joking about all players being born, it is the truth. Since that is true and you do believe its all in the genes, why don’t all superior players respond in a like manner no matter what they’re exposed to? FI, if Joe and Bill are coached/taught by Ed, but Joe excels and Bill doesn’t, how can Bill go to Pete who teaches some things differently and become superior too?
I will assume you posted that tongue in cheek.
Guys:
Don't dismiss the makeup/character side of the "superior" player.Individual players are just one piece of a 25 man puzzle.IMO to be considered a "superior" player you must produce as an individual but also positively impact the team as a leader(overt or by example)
This is a team game & players need to be evaluated & held accountable for their contribution to team success.The sooner players learn this trait the better chance they have to become truly "superior."
The "superior" character players:
1. Lead by example.
2. Are low maintainence.
3. Run their "best speed" all the time.
4. Are early.
5. Listen
6. Prepare "smart & hard."
7. Never "transfer blame."
8. Tell their teammates what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear.
9. Control the "controlables."
I am sure that you all can add to this list.
Don't dismiss the makeup/character side of the "superior" player.Individual players are just one piece of a 25 man puzzle.IMO to be considered a "superior" player you must produce as an individual but also positively impact the team as a leader(overt or by example)
This is a team game & players need to be evaluated & held accountable for their contribution to team success.The sooner players learn this trait the better chance they have to become truly "superior."
The "superior" character players:
1. Lead by example.
2. Are low maintainence.
3. Run their "best speed" all the time.
4. Are early.
5. Listen
6. Prepare "smart & hard."
7. Never "transfer blame."
8. Tell their teammates what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear.
9. Control the "controlables."
I am sure that you all can add to this list.
I am pretty much with Jerry on this one. It's a pretty complicated answer to a simple question.
My opinion is that hard work will make any player better but the level of skill varies from one player to another. Players who have great skills will just become phenomenal and players with bad skills may become decent. You can't teach athleticism and some players have it while others don't but regardless of your level of athleticism you can always make yourself better.
Now what helps / hurts a player and their development are things like
work ethic
exposure to good coaching
good attitude
type of parents
ability to work well with team mates
leadership
ability to follow others
coachability
There a whole lot more things you can put here and I doubt you will ever find a superior player who has every single trait because nobody is perfect.
My opinion is that hard work will make any player better but the level of skill varies from one player to another. Players who have great skills will just become phenomenal and players with bad skills may become decent. You can't teach athleticism and some players have it while others don't but regardless of your level of athleticism you can always make yourself better.
Now what helps / hurts a player and their development are things like
work ethic
exposure to good coaching
good attitude
type of parents
ability to work well with team mates
leadership
ability to follow others
coachability
There a whole lot more things you can put here and I doubt you will ever find a superior player who has every single trait because nobody is perfect.
Nice post Jerry.
Jerry,
I took the liberty of posting your thoughts on another board and got the following reply. I’m not intent on causing a war here, but I do believe its important that concepts like this be understood.
"The items on the list would fall under the mental part of the game. I have seen players with the mental side of the game well developed but who were lacking in other spheres. While they may have a superior mental side of their game, they could never become superior ball players."
I took the liberty of posting your thoughts on another board and got the following reply. I’m not intent on causing a war here, but I do believe its important that concepts like this be understood.
"The items on the list would fall under the mental part of the game. I have seen players with the mental side of the game well developed but who were lacking in other spheres. While they may have a superior mental side of their game, they could never become superior ball players."
Sooner or later the player will get to a place where everybody is just as good or maybe better. How he handles that is crucial.
SKeep, I know you're just posting others comments, but I will chime in here.
In Jerry's case, it is almost a given that the player is talented to be where he is. At the upper levels, college and minors, the talent has to be present.
The question wasn't really about talent, it was about superior players. I believe that the talent has to be there in the first place, then we can discuss what needs to be present in order to be considered superior. I think Jerry hit it on the head.
In Jerry's case, it is almost a given that the player is talented to be where he is. At the upper levels, college and minors, the talent has to be present.
The question wasn't really about talent, it was about superior players. I believe that the talent has to be there in the first place, then we can discuss what needs to be present in order to be considered superior. I think Jerry hit it on the head.
Guys,
Nothing is more common than a man with talent who has failed.How many times have you said " He could be good if" ?
The "if" usually refers to that person with ability who cannot make the "choices" necessary to truly become superior.
I'm not suggesting that players without basic phyical skills can become superior performers, but players with basic skills who work hard & smart will out perform those with superior basic skills who do not work hard & smart.(Brooks Robinson is a Hall of Famer & is a perfect example of what I am referring. There are numerous past & present Big Leaguers who fall into this category)
JW
Nothing is more common than a man with talent who has failed.How many times have you said " He could be good if" ?
The "if" usually refers to that person with ability who cannot make the "choices" necessary to truly become superior.
I'm not suggesting that players without basic phyical skills can become superior performers, but players with basic skills who work hard & smart will out perform those with superior basic skills who do not work hard & smart.(Brooks Robinson is a Hall of Famer & is a perfect example of what I am referring. There are numerous past & present Big Leaguers who fall into this category)
JW
quote:Originally posted by Coachric:
SKeep, I know you're just posting others comments, but I will chime in here.
I sure hope you don’t get the idea that I believe that comment.
quote:In Jerry's case, it is almost a given that the player is talented to be where he is. At the upper levels, college and minors, the talent has to be present.
I think you’re correct, but I don’t necessarily believe that only to be true at those upper levels. Once players get to the point where they have to actually WIN a spot on a team by proving themselves to be the superior players at a tryout, that’s when I’d say the talent is more than likely there. Of course I’m not talking daddyball, or some of this travel ball where its not uncommon that a spot on a team can literally be purchased. And, it certainly isn’t uncommon for a player to be given favorable treatment, even at the professional level.
quote:The question wasn't really about talent, it was about superior players. I believe that the talent has to be there in the first place, then we can discuss what needs to be present in order to be considered superior. I think Jerry hit it on the head.
You’re exactly correct. When I asked the original question, I chose my words carefully.
Unfortunately, the other boards where I posted the question, the same fellow made the 1st reply on both, 1st he tried to get me to narrow the focus to a specific level, then he got into the “talent” thing and the gist of the question was lost in arguing something that I assumed was a given. ;(
quote:Originally posted by jerry weinstein:
I'm not suggesting that players without basic phyical skills can become superior performers, but players with basic skills who work hard & smart will out perform those with superior basic skills who do not work hard & smart.(Brooks Robinson is a Hall of Famer & is a perfect example of what I am referring. There are numerous past & present Big Leaguers who fall into this category)
Just out of curiosity, because he’s a friend of mine and I know something of his history, would you say Fernando Vina fell into that category? If you don’t want to share your thoughts publicly, please PM me.
I didn’t get to see him prior to being in the ML, but I’ve gotten to know his parents and many of his friends, including former coaches and peers, and from what I gather, he’s definitely what I’d call a Type “A” grinder.
Fernando Vina had it all.He was very skilled & played with tremendous passion for the game. He was an above average runner,had as sure a pair of hands as you could find,outstanding eye hand coordination,and a ++ arm. He is among the 5 best ever to turn the DP IMO. Best of all he was a great teammate who loved to win.He was a lot of fun to coach.On top of all that he has super parents & his Mom makes the best Cuban food anywhere.
JW
JW
Hey SKeep, why you worried about questioning "old timers"? They call baseball "America's Game" and here in America we got that thing called "Freedom of Speach"!
quote:Originally posted by plash3:
Hey SKeep, why you worried about questioning "old timers"? They call baseball "America's Game" and here in America we got that thing called "Freedom of Speach"!
I’m not worried about it because I don’t take any of this stuff personally, nor do I give it personally. Its just supposed to be about exchanging opinions and thoughts. But, once before I said some things that got under the skin of some of the “old timers”, and it got me banned. Since I’ve been back, one of the moderators has already threatened me with expulsion again.
