"Bounce," an Unfair Comparison of J-Hey and Matt Young, and Why I believe in Certain Prospects
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 4, 2011 7:22 AM EST
Email
Print
"Bounce," an Unfair Comparison of J-Hey and Matt Young, and Why I believe in Certain Prospects
Hi Guys,
I've recently finished reading Matthew Syed's amazing book, "Bounce: How Champions are Made." I'm recommend it to anyone; I think it's a brilliant examination of the factors that go into creating winners, which can be helpful for anyone who wants to excel at something, avoid choking in sport, or raise their kids to be brilliant.
Anyway, I'm not here to plug the book (though I'll happily admit I just have). I'm instead going to highlight some of the things that I took away from it, and look at how the lessons it preaches might be effecting some of our young Braves. I'm going to compare Jason Heyward and Matt Young, and try and pinpoint why Heyward is a darkhorse MVP candidate with a starting job at 21, and why Matt Young, despite apparently having a similar work ethic and confidence level, is fighting for his first major league role at 28.
Two things: This is in no way an article meant to hate on Matt Young. I loooove me some Matt Young. Some very smart people think that Matt Young would excel in the majors now, and might be better than Nate McClouth.
Also. I realise J-Hey is 6'4", 230 and Matt Young is 5'8", 175. That is certainly significant. J-Hey might have had it harder, and Matt Young easier, had those roles been reversed. But Pedroia tells us height isn't everything, and Matt Young could just as easily be replaced by, say, Roger Bernardina. I'm using Matt Young because he's a Brave, he's interesting, and he's not an elite player...yet.
First, the factors Syed suggests make a champion:
1) Hard work: Following Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers," Syed gives tons of examples of how only those with 10,000 hours of intense practice go on to truly excel - in any field. He gives several examples of how, in groups destined for different levels of greatness, the only separating factor is hours practiced. His examples which argue against natural talent, as well - one of the world's fastest table tennis players having below-average reflexes, barely able to hit a tennis ball, etc. 10,000 hours of practice, by the way, usually takes about 10 years minimum (3 hours a day is about as much intense practice as the mind can handle on one thing!). The key take-away here is that prospects/kids/even major leaguers should always be evaluated on their hard work, not their "talent,"
2) The Type of Practice, and Feedback: Wait a minute, I hear you say. Surely tons of lifelong minor leaguers must have put in 10,000 hours of practice. Hell, many have probably played 10,000 hours of game baseball! How come they're not elite?
First of all, games aren't practice. Practice involves working on specific areas of weakness, whereas most good players in a game will be on "autopilot," reflexively doing things like swinging a bat (quite a complicated motion!) that they've internalized by doing a million times. Secondly, the type of practice is important - you need practice that will continually challenge and push you, feedback on exactly what is going wrong, and coaches who can set up drills that help you work on exactly that. To use Syed's example, why aren't we all amazing drivers? I'm nowhere close, but I imagine some of you reading this may have averaged a 45-hour commute both ways every day for 20 years. The reason lies in the fact that you go into "autopilot," when you drive, not consciously working on your driving, or getting feedback on how to be better (unless you always take your spouse? Well, no positive feedback, anyway). Similarly, I'd guess, life-long minor leaguers begin to just go through the motions, rarely challenging themselves with a new drill, or changing their swing (which they would need to do) because it's difficult. Which has a lot to do with...
3) Attitude: Specifically Confidence and Lack of Fear of Failure. In order to become better, you need to lose a lot and learn from it. This is very true in baseball, since 3/10 is good, but also true in things like chess, where grandmasters have always lost at least 10,000 games. But you need to be unafraid to take criticism due to your down patches, and be OK with failing if it makes you better (some of the top defenders in MLB made soooo many errors in the minors!). This also reminds me heavily of Frenchy, who was clearly always terrified of failure, so never did what he needed to to continue to improve (I'm not good at OBP? Well that can't be important!). Whereas Michael Jordan missed 26 game-winning shots and was unafraid to own up to it!
Confidence is also key, especially since books like "The Power of Positive Thinking" tell us that players who believe they'll succeed every time (and visualise it!) consistently do better: in short, you have to have some crazy beliefs. Just as Tiger "knows" he'll make every putt (and every hole in general), and Chipper "knows" he'll always bounce back strong (and here, in my mother's basement, I can kiss his ass if I feel otherwise!)
OK, enough of all that. Time for a brief comparison of the factors that effected J-Hey and Matt Young:
Hard Work - I have no doubt Young has put in the work. But there's no way he's done it as quickly and effectively as J-Hey. Young played well in High School (though not as well as Heyward), and at a decent program in New Mexico. Young's family was probably decently well off (Plano, TX is a nice place), but he likely lacked the resources provided by Heyward's parents. He's been in the Braves org, playing regularly and working hard since 2003. But it's hard to compete with someone who had probably logged his 10,000 hours by 19 years old. Hell, J-Hey's parents wouldn't even let him play other sports! And he loved it! Was he getting his "three-a-day" everyday? I suspect so.
Quality of Practice - This, I think, is where Young's height has really hurt him, as he's likely been physically and figuratively overlooked his whole career. While J-Hey was given priority coaching and plenty of feedback, Matt Young was likely recieving no more coaching than the average minor leaguer, despite his better performance. They're both in their second Major League Spring Training, despite a seven-year age difference, and by the end of this training, Heyward certainly will have played more, and received far more attention.
Fear of Failure -Heyward's struggles in the middle of the season last year are, at least in my eyes, a huge positive. We still made the playoffs, and we've now seen that Heyward can handle relative failure without making excuses, giving up or throwing Francouer-esque pity parties. Young, meanwhile, has had some issues with this, but is hopefully now over them.
Confidence - This is where Heyward really shines. Matt Young seems like a nice, humble guy, occasionally jokingly degrading his own ability. But have you ever heard Tiger doubt himself in any way? Federer? Nadal? Brady? Heyward? No, neither have I. And I suspect you never will, at least before 40 or so.
So advantage Heyward in every respect. Am I suggesting Young had the potential to be Jason Heyward? No. But do I think that, given Heyward's upbring and coaching, Matt Young would already be a Major League Regular? Absolutely.
Just a few notes on other Braves, given what we've discussed:
- The Hard, purposeful practice of Prado is what has turned him from fringe prospect to fringe star. If he could get his confidence up to Chipper/Heyward levels (and I remember reading this from coaches, though can't find an article) he'd be a star
- For similar reasons, I'm hugely excited about Jordan Schafer, and have been ever since he bought his ProBatter. Talk about purposeful practice! And now that he doesn't fear failure, I completely expect him to be our 2012 center fielder
- I was incredibly dissapointed by this report on Christian Bethancourt. To me, it means he's wasted a lot of his development time by being arrogant and not working as hard as he should. That's just a waste - even if his attitude's now improved, that's lost development time, and he's no longer top-15 for me in the system.
- This report is equally exciting, especially concerning Aroyds Vizcieno. I'm glad he's going out of his way to get better feedback, and his attitude seems to have improved since last years negative comparisons to Teheran.
- Speaking of Teheran, his pregame warm-up routine (also in report above) speaks to a lot of purposeful practice. I am so excited!
- I'm so happy Freddie Freeman has (and has had) Jason around to give him a great example of how to put the work in, be confident, absorb failure, etc.
So enough rambling; this post is far, far longer than I expected and my girlfriend is increasingly thinking I'm odd. What are your guys and gals' thoughts? Have I at least partially convinced you to not put as much weight in "the talent myth," as Syed call it? If so, what Braves players/prospects does this make you more/less excited about?
This FanPost does not express the views or opinions of Talking Chop.
53 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Urgh
My username is still terrible. My apologies for that. I’m the same guy who posted these articles a couple of years ago:
http://www.talkingchop.com/2009/1/10/715983/how-to-fix-the-braves
http://www.talkingchop.com/2009/1/5/709559/why-kelly-johnson-has-to-b
under a similarly terribly moniker. In retrospect, probably right on KJ (hattip to Justin and VictorW), mostly wrong on Adam Kennedy (buries head in sand).
Holy cow – the “how to fix the braves” article was one of my first postings…man, that seems like ages ago, but it really wasn’t.
This guy wants to suck all the cubs dick can he not have an unbias some what partition reguards
by RWH2 on Apr 5, 2010 10:20 AM CDT
by justincredubil02 on Mar 5, 2011 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
When I first started reading I thought I would hate this post, but I ended up really enjoying it. I don’t really know where I stand on the whole practice/talent debate but I know it’s good to have both just to be safe.
Jason Heyward wins at baseball.
by bbxxj on Mar 4, 2011 8:17 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I think the post misses the main point.
And it really just sounds like a regurgitation of tripe self-help guru stuff. First, one factual correction—-while most Grandmasters have probably lost 10,000 games of chess, a few guys (and one girl) have become Grandmasters between the ages of 11 and 15. Those players have not lost 10,000 games by the time they made GM, they just haven’t had the time.
Now, my main point: millions and millions of people play competitive baseball. The upper minors and the majors contain only the very best of the best (and strangely, for a few years, Sidney Ponson, but I digress). To make it to the majors at all, and certainly to be a star in the majors requires both tons of practice, hard work, and dedication plus a boatload of natural talent. Bascially, if you have talent and put in the work you can make it. If you don’t have the talent or don’t put in the work, it just isn’t going to work. Too many people are gunning for too few major league roster positions.
Sorry for being harsh, it is just that self-help gurus annoy me.
I get that, but..
I don’t want to come accross as some sycophantic self-help regurgitator either, My work made me read “How to Make Friends” and “Be your own brand” and I hated both of them. Pretentiously written, and the salient points they made (“listen to others!” “be disciplined!”) seemed obvious, if not always easy.
This one got me though, and I’m beginning to hate “lack of talent” being used as an excuse. Circumstance, help given, sure. But not lack of talent. That’s one of the reasons I used Matt Young. I think one of the reasons everybody loves and roots for him is because he’s an “everyman,” who doesn’t seem especially talented, but has worked his way to the top. Hell, I’d be surprised if I weren’t close to being as physically talented as Young (6’3", rowed national crew, etc.) But the fact is, he’s put in the work, and now he’s close to the top.
There might be something to the idea that being a professional hitter needs uncommon eyesight, which might be a “talent.” Certainly Bonds had great vision. But didn’t McCann hit adequately, even without glasses, before Lasic? He must have been below average on the eyesight scale! It might be more important to pick up the ball quickly, recognise spin, etc…all of which requires practice.
To be clear, I don’t think “Bounce” is a self-help book. It’s an explanitory book that I, in my experience, suspect to be correct. Do I find it inspirational? Yes, I play more guitar, chess and ultimate frisbee because of it, as I want to be at least good in all three areas. But I think that specifically because it’s NOT a self-help book.
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 4, 2011 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough.
And there is a point to an extent. I guess my main point is that Young will never be Heyward, because Heyward has the dedication and has put in the work, and he is also tremendously talented. The hard work will get you farther than you would without it, but to take your example, Young will almost certainly never be as good as Heyward, because Heyward works just as hard and also has obscene natural talent.
As for hitting, I think eyesight is a necessary talent. I recall reading somewhere that the average major league hitter has 20/14 vision. As for McCann, I am pretty certain he wore contacts before getting the LASIK surgery. I doubt he could hit anything without any vision correct, hitting is just too hard.
Good luck with your endeavors—-btw, do you play in chess tournaments in Georgia? I’ll be playing in a tournament at Emory (and since I’ll be in town, I’ll catch a couple of games as well) in June. If you do play tournaments in Atlanta, I am sure we know tons of the same people; before I moved to New Orleans in 2003, I played there all the time. (yes, the “bird” in my handle is my opening, not a reference to an animal of the avian variety).
Cheers
Haha no, I live in the Scotland. Quite a transplanted Braves fan!
I’m actually really interested in the eyesight angle, and will do some research. Do teams require better than 20/20? Maybe they should!
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 5, 2011 8:13 AM EST up reply actions
Eyesight
There is a school of thought that measuring eyesight as 20/20, 20/10 is not the same as visual acuity with respect to moving objects. Obviously, having 20/20 vision or better is a requirement for this sort of visual acuity, but it doesn’t guarantee it. I personally believe this to be the case, and that is why some guys who have “perfect” vision still can’t hit a slider/curveball (the ugly Andruw/Francouer swings on outside breaking pitches from RHPs come to mind).
Although it is most likely a myth, Ted Williams was said to be able to read the words on a record spinning at 78 rpms.
by DK8 on Mar 5, 2011 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Well it's a well known fact
Chipper can read the bottom scroll on CNN or ESPN on the not-huge TV in the clubhouse from nearly across the room. There have been stories about people saying “Wow, you can read that?”
Just like he can see a little red dot in the center of an incoming 89-MPH pitch that tells him “Slider.” Great vision is a huge asset, even if it isn’t a guarantee of anything.
Two More things
1) This wasn’t meant to be a straight-up comparison of the Heyward and Young (though I admit it ended up that way) but rather to look at the factors that made them BOTH great (and then look for those factors in others)
2) The fifteen year-old female grandmaster you mention above, Judit Polgar, actually features in “Bounce.” The Polgar sisters (all chess protiges) were raised to play chess by Laszlo Polgar (neither parent played much chess beforehand). Laszlo actually raised them to play chess in an attempt to debunk the “talent over practice” idea
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 5, 2011 8:47 AM EST up reply actions
Laszlo Polgar's intention was also...
…to show that women could compete at the top level, which he did show pretty convincingly.
I think for ultimate frisbee you just need to smoke more pot
Thats not really a 10,000 hours sport. That said, I enjoyed reading the post.
"IN THE AIR LEFT FIELD- THAT'LL DO IT!... AND IT KEEPS ON GOING; THAT IS A HOMERUN!"
Talking Chop: where you get "final warnings" for calling out blog authors who quit on the team in a pennant race
You're kidding right?
Let me get this out of the way—hard work will undeniably get you farther as a baseball player than you would without it. But extreme talent is a requirement for major league baseball.
Matt Young does not have even close to the amount of talent as Jason Heyward. I have limited knowledge of how much talent Young has, and even less about his work habits. But positive thinking, confidence, and 50 bazillion hours of practice in the world will not turn Matt Young into a player as like Heyward was last year.
What I can say with certainty is that there are lots of guys who work at baseball just as hard as Jason Heyward. There are plenty of those who put in just as much work from a similar young age as Heyward also.
Your 10,000 hours of practice thing just does not apply to baseball. I could spend the next 10 years training to be a sprinter, but I will never be able to run from home to first in under 4 seconds. Or spend the next 10 years and 10,000 hours practicing my pitching will not help me throw 95mph. It would be like trying to teach the theory of relativity to a kid with down syndrome—it you’re not working with the right raw materials it isn’t going to happen.
The 10,000 hours thing applies to the majority of the population. But you, me and 99% of the people doing the 9-5 thing don’t have to be one of the best 750 people in the world at our jobs to keep them. I’d imaging if you went out and found the best 750 accountants in the world there would be some serious natural talent there too. So while the 10,000 hours of hard work and positive attitude can probably help the average person improve their performance, I submit to you that everyone has a ceiling to how high that can take them. So arbitrarily picking Matt Young and saying he doesn’t work hard enough or that he doesn’t have the most positive attitude because he didn’t have the same level of success by age 28 as Heyward did by 21 is silly.
Actually, it’s beyond silly…maybe you’re one of the ones who can’t be taught the theory of relativity.
You have poor reading comprehension skills
He never once said Matt Young was or ever will be on the same level as Jason Heyward. Insulting and insinuating that he has Down Syndrome is classless.
While I don’t fully agree with the post, I can constructively criticize it without insults. The “talent myth” isn’t a myth at all. Supremely talented players will always have more of an impact at the highest levels because no matter how talented you are, it takes dedication and hard work to make it in professional sports. The most talented players won’t make it to the top levels without a good work ethic. You need both talent and had work to make it. Talent will only take you so far, but those that enhance those talents with hard work are more likely to succeed.
You are correct. I am classless, snarky and right.
And if anyone else believes the “talent myth” applies to baseball I have some beach front property to sell them in Oklahoma.
by DK8 on Mar 4, 2011 9:08 PM EST up reply actions
He said that he thought Matt Young would already be a regular on an MLB team if he worked harder, practiced smarter, and had a better attitude.
I said that he’s a disused term for a person with a mental age between 8 and 12 (moron).
by DK8 on Mar 4, 2011 9:13 PM EST up reply actions
Not quite
I’m saying that if Matt Young had had the opportunity (and had taken advantage of it) to have done those three things when younger, he would be an MLB regular.
I’m suggesting that this needs to be a key part of how the Braves (and other teams) evaluate their present and future talent. Who has put in the hours, and who will continue to do so, has to be a key factor in drafting and priotising coaching towards prospects.
Obviously teams, especially the Braves, value “makeup,” but I guess I’m arguing this should be valued to a greater extent. I, for one, had little hope that Jo-Jo Reyes or Charlie Morton would ever be above-average (Morton could still prove me wrong!) because, despite their ability to throw hard AND work ethic, as they clearly lacked confidence
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 5, 2011 8:26 AM EST up reply actions
This is where I would disagree.
I don’t think Young had much of a chance to be a major league regular. I think there are too many people who have extra talent, plus whatever Young could have done to improve. It is just a small set of people who are major league regulars (13 × 30) that those with more talent who do all of those things would always be ahead of him. That is of course assuming that he does not have more talent than we suspect—-just because he is small doesn’t mean he can’t have certain talents that are very useful in baseball: pitch regocnition, defensive ability, etc.
And my very simple reply would be
That pitch recognition and defensive ability (in terms of read, glove skills, footwork, positioning, and, to a lesser extent, speed) are learned skills.
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 8, 2011 4:16 AM EST up reply actions
The OP’s problem is that he has apparently bought into the false idea shared by Syed that all people are basically the same; that innate abilities, genetic differences, and racial characteristics are myths; and that, therefore, the only thing that really separates the average from the “great” are controllable factors, such as hard work and proper attitude. This is an absurd denial of reality, but also one that is, unfortunately, shared by all too many modern Westerners, in one form or another. Usually it is the denial of racial differences that is the strongest, with some room left for natural talents and genetic variability on an individual level. But the OP denies those factors as well, which takes the absurdity to an all new level.
Certainly, as DK8 said, hard work has its place. But hard work, “purposeful” practice, and confidence can only take you so far. In the end what separates Heyward from the Matt Young’s of the world is natural talent and genetics better suited for the skills of baseball. Like the saying goes, you either have “it,” or you don’t have “it.” Matt Young, for as much as I like and relate to him — doesn’t have “it.” And no amount of elbow grease or Tony Robbins tapes is going to change that.
by 2Brave2Bscared on Mar 4, 2011 9:34 PM EST up reply actions
Wow.
I wish there was a way to thumb down posts. I am not aware of any scientific evidence of “racial characteristics” that are particularly relevant to athletics. There are certain historical factors that can play into this (for example, the top marathoners tend to come from Ethiopia or Kenya simply because historically people from that area hunted by outlasting the animals they hunted in long distancing running, needless to say, that led to the evolutionary drawing out of great long distance running traits) but I don’t know of anything explicitly showing racial athletic characteristics since the long discredited tripe put out by Hitler’s “scientists” in the 30’s and 40’s.
Race wasn’t really the point of my post. But I’m not surprised that you’re offended.
by 2Brave2Bscared on Mar 5, 2011 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
I am offended at the stupidity more than anything.
The idea of “racial characteristics” as applied to abilities has been debunked for decades. If you have any real backing for your apparent theory that there are race-wide characteristics that apply to abilities, by all means share. I sort of doubt that, however, because, as I noted above, those theories were debunked ages ago. I agree that talent is very, very important in baseball. I don’t see how “racial characteristics” play any part in that.
Once again
Since you apparently don’t care to listen. I have no interesting in discussing race. Race was not even remotely the point of my post. If not for your hyper-liberal sensibilities, there was no real reason to be offended by what I said.
Now, please do continue your racist/bigot/nazi witch hunt elsewhere.
by 2Brave2Bscared on Mar 5, 2011 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
You should read your own post.
You said and I quote: “he has apparently bought into the false idea shared by Syed that all people are basically the same; that innate abilities, genetic differences, and racial characteristics are myths.” Yes, you just threw in “racial characteristics” in a laundry list of items that you considered to be true. Your main point was that inate abilities and talent matter, a point with which I agree, and posted the same multiple times in this thread. However, when you throw in something incorrect, ignorant, scientifically baseless, and evil as stating there are abilities based upon “racial characteristics” even as a throw away line in a post, you have to be expected to be called out for it by intelligent people of good conscience.
Of course you don’t want to discuss it. You want to just quietly throw it in, and let it be unchallenged. To discuss it would allow the obvious inaccuracy of the comment to be exposed. Sorry, that just won’t fly.
Again, if you didn’t mean what you appear to have said, feel free to explain. But please don’t say, hey, it’s cool if I throw crap like that in, then accuse those who call me out on that as being on a witchhunt. If you believe it and feel like you should post it, whether as the main idea of a post or as an aside, accept it and try to defend it (good luck on this one). If not, don’t say it.
Wow
“and evil as stating there are abilities based upon "racial characteristics"
Lol. You really are a piece of work.
Yep, I guess the people behind studies like this are just pure evil. You’re an idiot.
Not that it matters. The fact of the matter is that even if I did produce mountains of evidence for my case, in the end it would never convince you. Not necessarily because the science isn’t “good,” but because your presuppositions would never allow you to change your mind about this. According to you, any mere notion that there might be racial differences is “evil” and akin to Nazi “pseudoscience,” and so how could you ever accept such ideas? You have already made up your mind.
This is why I loathe talking about this kind of stuff, especially with imbecile liberals like yourself, because such discussions get NOWHERE. No matter how much evidence we submit for the defense of our respective case, the chances of either one of us changing the other’s mind is next to zero. But such is usually the case when it comes to science: everybody has their own theories and evidences, and who’s to say one is right and the other is wrong. It’s a waste of time.
Since these discussions don’t get anywhere, and since they always end with the one person (in this case, you) accusing the other person of being evil and a Nazi, this conversation came to its inevitable conclusion a long time ago, specifically after you posted your initial response to me.
So, once again, take your phony, self-righteous act and use it on somebody who actually cares. You’re a waste of my time.
by 2Brave2Bscared on Mar 5, 2011 7:37 PM EST up reply actions
Where the heck are you getting “liberal” from?
It’s arrogant pricks like you that give the rest of us conservatives a bad name.
This guy wants to suck all the cubs dick can he not have an unbias some what partition reguards
by RWH2 on Apr 5, 2010 10:20 AM CDT
by justincredubil02 on Mar 5, 2011 9:46 PM EST up reply actions
Nice try, but the article refutes your point.
It wasn’t a “racial” trait, just a historical and locational one. Here is the key paragraph (from the study you cited):
“But Bejan said the study he conducted with Edward Jones, a professor at Howard University in Washington, and Duke graduate Jordan Charles, focused on the athletes’ geographic origins and biology, not race, which the authors of the study call a “social construct.”
Yes, like I noted in my original post, historical and biological reasons have led certain subsets of people (and since they are geographically intertwined, usually of the same race) to have certain characteristics that can help in athletic endeavors. That does not mean the purely racial characteristics do.
And yes, thinking racial characteristics think that some people are better than others at X or Y when science says otherwise is evil. Yes, I am a liberal, but hey, conservatives usually accuse us of saying evil doesn’t exist. It does. It is the garbage beliefs you are espousing.
Discussions get nowhere, that is true. It is because you defend yourself with something that you think supports your position but then you fail to read the whole article to find out that it doesn’t. If that is the best you have (and since you cited it and nothing else I have to assume that it is) then the reasons that such discussions get nowhere is obvious: it is because you are looking for anything that supports your positions and scrape the bottom of the barrell and still fail to find it.
For the record, this is my last post on this matter until you reply intelligently. Because arguing with evil stupid people is pointless. I have exposed you already, I need do nothing else.
One last point...
…and this really is my last post. My original example of locational issues was western African (Ethiopian and Kenyan) marathon runner, and this article is about them specifically in relation to others if you read this. Not only does the article you cite not help you, it supports what I said. Yes, I did not explain how in the physical sense, but I explained scientifically why. Good lord, you really need to do better, that was a pathetic defense to what you want to believe and twist things to prove.
You are right about one thing, though
I should have omitted the racial aspect of my post. Not because what I said is “evil” or “scientifically baseless,” or because I’m afraid to defend what I said because it’s inaccurate. No, none of that. I wish I had kept my mouth shut because I know better. I should have remembered how controversial such a subject is, and that the probability of some annoying, self-righteous prick coming along and making a big stink about it was pretty high.
I regret posting what I said because I shouldn’t have delved anywhere close to the racial or political on a forum such as this, where such subject matters are either extremely frowned upon and/or outright prohibited.
by 2Brave2Bscared on Mar 5, 2011 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
The OP’s problem is that he has apparently bought into the false idea shared by Syed that all people are basically the same; that innate abilities, genetic differences, and racial characteristics are myths; and that, therefore, the only thing that really separates the average from the "great" are controllable factors, such as hard work and proper attitude. This is an absurd denial of reality, but also one that is, unfortunately, shared by all too many modern Westerners, in one form or another. Usually it is the denial of racial differences that is the strongest, with some room left for natural talents and genetic variability on an individual level. But the OP denies those factors as well, which takes the absurdity to an all new level.
At which part of this were not talking about something other than people having racial characteristics that separate them from everyone else?
Cavebird is right on.
This guy wants to suck all the cubs dick can he not have an unbias some what partition reguards
by RWH2 on Apr 5, 2010 10:20 AM CDT
by justincredubil02 on Mar 5, 2011 9:43 PM EST up reply actions
By the way...
Thanks for invoking Goodwin’s law right off the bat. Atta boy.
by 2Brave2Bscared on Mar 5, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
Very funny, but in this case...
…relatively appropriate. You were apparently (and if you weren’t please explain) invoking a psuedoscienticif theory that was esoused by the Nazis and “backed-up” by their “scientists.” Again, if you could explain what you mean and how it could possibly apply to baseball, I’ll read it.
OK, I've worded it all a bit strongly
And I agree with your point on arm strenght, natural power, etc. And of course there are limits to human ability, period, and these are amplified by defects of any sort.
But Id have to disagree with your point about accountants. There are many studies that suggest that the brain, like other “muscles” (it is apparently partially muscle!) can be “worked out” – you can literaly change your brain by using bits of it more! So it’s possibly that the best accountants had slighly larger “math sections” of their brain, but I suspect it’s mostly due to molding it that way through mathematical practice.
Obviously there are limits to who can be a ballplayer. My point with Matt Young is that he has “it,” whatever “it” is (though to a lesser extent than Heyward). And I’m beginning to suspect “it” is merely
1) size and strenght
2) work ethic
3) superior eyesight\
Of which Young probably has 2
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 5, 2011 8:34 AM EST up reply actions
Also
“Extreme” talent necessary for baseball? People who have tested average or worse “naturally” in everyway have gone on to excel in tennis, chess, table tennis, mathmatical calculation…all highly competitve endevours, Why is baseball different?
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 5, 2011 8:53 AM EST up reply actions
Yes EXTREME
Baseball is a skill sport, and skills can be honed. That’s why (unlike football and basketball) amateurs are not able to make the jump from the highest level of amateur competition to the highest level of professional competition.
But major league baseball players have obscenely quick reactions and hand eye coordination.
Actually I think that pitchers are better to illustrate my point. The population of people who have the genetic potential to throw a baseball 95 mph is extremely small. An awful lot of those people would test “average or worse naturally” in the types of things may people would consider athleticism. But you would just be wrong if you said they don’t have EXTREME natural talent.
I think you have oversimplified the issue and frankly are a bit naive. I doubt you played competitive baseball past about 12 years old. And my guess is part of the reason you switched to rowing crew is that your natural abilities were more suited to that endeavor.
Touche
You make some good points, and most things you say in the above post are correct (though hopefully not that I’m naive!) I especially agree with your point on pitchers.
I did indeed quit baseball for crew (at 13!) but I don’t think I did it because of lack of co-ordination and reactions. While I haven’t excelled at them for to the same level, I’m also pretty good at tennis and table tennis, which I grew up playing (and was invited to a tennis academy at one point, etc, so may have had the “talent” to do)
There are also studies, as I referenced in the post, that suggest top table tennis players sometimes have below average natural reactions. What seperates them, instead, is a learned ability to react to the specific rigors of the game, which I suspect is also true for baseball.
As for your point on bastball/football vs baseball – football players typically can’t just jump to the highest level, no? They have to go to college first, and hardly anyone is in the league at Heyward’s age. As for basketball, isn’t it possible that it’s much easier to get hours of practice in basketball? You can do it by yourself, requires many less facilities, etc. I’d guess the average basketball draftee out of High School has played and practiced much more basketball than a baseball draftee has baseball.
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 7, 2011 5:01 AM EST up reply actions
Ummmm
Your football argument falls flat. The reason no one is in the NFL at 20 is because of the rule that you must play 2 years of college before being drafted. The NFL argument for either of you falls flat because of the size difference for effectiveness between the NFL and even the best college program. A great example this year is Tyron Smith of USC, who played at 290ish during his college career at offensive tackle, but he needs to put on a solid 20-30 pounds of muscle even to compete at the next level, despite a ton of natual ability and athleticism.
Also, the NBA no longer allows anyone to be drafted straight from high school.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
I HATE this sort of reply
You’ve corrected my factual errors without addressing my point. I appreciate that you have corrected my misunderstanding of the draft rules of two sports I really don’t care about, and I apologize for not having done that simple research.
However, I don’t think you’ve made my arguement “fall flat” in any way. Yes, part of going to college for football is to work out and get bigger. But I had UCLA football players in my frat last year, and I’d estimate they practiced for 2 hours a day, 3 during the season, and much more if you include workouts. They almost never partied! Bulking up is huge, but I’d be very surprised if almost 2,000 hours of focused practice on skills over those 2 years wasn’t a huge, huge factor.
The fact that basketball has changed its rules also doesn’t challenge my point in any way.
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 8, 2011 4:07 AM EST up reply actions
You stated that
“the average basketball draftee out of high school…”
There is no basketball players drafted out of high school anymore, so there is no average one.
You OBVIOUSLY know little about the game of football if you think that enhancing the body is “part” of the reason no one could jump from the high school to pro level is that they would literally be killed in the NFL game. Jason Heyward honed his skills that were there already against better pitchers to make his way to the majors. NFL players need to build their bodies in order to survive in the NFL from the time they’re in high school. It’s not PART of why college is needed, it’s the primary reason, and for some the only reason. I played college football. I have former teammates who played NFL football after college. I can tell you that I worked my butt off at practice, but the average build of an offseason practice was about 1/2-2/3 of the time doing conditioning, and the last 1/3-1/2 was split between skill practice and unit (offense, defense, special teams) practice – film or on field. In season was almost always 1/2 unit practice, and about 1/4 conditioning, 1/8 film, 1/8 skill work. The skill work in football, especially on the lines, is really not an individual thing as much as working among a unit. Working together with other players is absolutely the most important part of the game of football, not solo skill practice. That’s why it’s very rare the top guys at the NFL combine turn into much in the NFL. The combine studs at WR run a 4.3 40. The AVERAGE starting WR in the NFL runs a 4.6. Marvin Harrison was great coming out of college, but he became elite by working out with another person (Peyton Manning) over and over and over.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
And you are incorrect on football...
you have to be 3 years removed from high school (unless your name is Eric Swann for some reason). The sophomores you see leaving either redshirted (ala Knowshon Moreno) or went to prep school for a year to qualify for college (ala Larry Fitzgerald). The NFL rule is you must be 3 years removed from high school, whether they were in JUCO, prep school, a D1 school, etc.
http://sportsandgrits.blogspot.com/
D'oh
You’re right. I messed that part up! LOL! Thanks.
The Eric Swann thing came about as he played in some semi-pro league rather than go to college (because he was academically ineligible), which was a loophole in the rule as you could be drafted straight from one year of semi-pro ball. No player since has really tested it, though.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Who cares?
I’m not trying to be mean but I stopped reading this 1/3rd of the way through. Practice is important but there is a certain genetic and talent factor that is being missed here.
This really sounds like exactly what you apologized for “regurgitating self-help” or some such shenanigans. This really sounds like a self-help seminar.
Let me tell you something you will never hear at a self-help seminar “you are either born with it or you aren’t.” The reasons for that fact are self-evident. Why would you need self-help if the outcome is largely predetermined?
Baseball is a matter of maximizing the specialized talents that certain atheletes have.
All the practice in the world can’t compensate for a lack of eye-hand coordination.
I'm not sure how you can characterise this as self-help
Maybe the attitude part, but it’s commonly accepted that focusing on positive results, beliveing in yourself etc.
THe fact that it takes 10,000 hours to be world class, if anything, is frankly demoralising. I’m 22, and could’t be world class in ANYTHING before 30, even if I fully deicated myself to it.
My aim here was to spark discussion on how we evaluate players/prospects. If it does come down to “specialized talents” people were born with, then, what the hell are they?
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 5, 2011 8:41 AM EST up reply actions
“If it does come down to "specialized talents" people were born with, then, what the hell are they?”
If you can figure that out, then you have a very long career ahead of you as a world class scout.
Makeup is important though, which I think is your main point. I believe the Braves do an excellent job of evaluating makeup in conjunction with talent. That’s why the Braves continue to develop a steady stream of ML quality players without spending bundles of money in the draft. When was the last time you heard of the Braves going way over slot to sign a guy picked after the first round? I think the reason they don’t do this is because management believes they can draft more cost-effectively by being more thorough in their evaluation of both a player’s physical talent and makeup.
I haven’t read the comments, but all I can say is that I agree with the basic premise that hard work is a necessity, but at the end of the day there are certain things in sport that can not be improved.
For the most part speed and jumping ability are genetic factors. You can indeed improve, but if you can’t run a 4.8 naturally, you’ll probably never be able to run a 4.5 40 even if you put in the requisite 10,000 hours of practice (there are aging difficulties as your body will begin to break down by the time you reach 10,000 hours, presumably).
I can practice all day and night, and I will never be an NFL WR. I simply wasn’t blessed genetically. The analogy to chess doesn’t work, bc there are no natural limitations to being a great chess player. You could make an argument that certain humans are blessed genetically in terms of mental prowess, but I am not easily persuaded by that.
There are things that cannot be improved, which is why Matt Young most likely won’t ever be a regular MLB player. First, he isn’t tall enough.Now height isn’t a requirement to be a baseball player, it certainly helps, as greater height allows for greater power and greater plate coverage. The power area specifically is hampering MY. he could put on muscle, but that would hamper his ability in other areas, namely his speed and good bat control.
"No. Lonely people mixing with one another? Breeding? Creating an even lonelier generation? You're not even allowing natural selection do its work. Pssh. You're like the guy who invented the seat belt."
Dwight Schrute
Great summary
That pretty accurately sums up most of the discussion, and I mostly agree. I’ll admit I may have appeared to devalue things like build, muscle structure, etc.
But height is not a requirement to be a regular, and, as I linked above, Matt Young is projected by some to be the second best non-catcher regular in the minors. Behind only Mike Moustakas, typically a top-10 prospect!
My point here was to examine two great players, not bash on MY.
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 7, 2011 4:50 AM EST up reply actions
a 45 hour commute!
Both ways!! You have a crazy schedule my friend.
Haha!
No, I don’t, thankfully. Well, I do, but not for that reason. I was using that as an example (and know plenty of people who do have similar commutes, which I hope doesn’t happen to me!)
by Bravenewworld2 on Mar 7, 2011 4:52 AM EST up reply actions
Um...
He said 45 HOUR, which was an obvious mistake in your post. I’m (and most others are as well) assuming you meant 45 minute commute, which is fairly common in a metro area.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
One more thing
Before the post leaves the front page. I am always looking to improve my writing, and would love any feedback anyone has time to give.
If I had it again, I would remove advectives such as “amazing” from my first paragraph, as I suspect this sound sycophantic and therefore offputting. I would also double check for simple errors such as “45-Hour” and “Nate McClouth”
Anything else?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Talking Chop
Related FanShots on Talking Chop
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Roy Oswalt doesn’t need to save the Rangers, he only needs to provide insurance and depth
- James Loney: Umpires should call pitches from behind mound — and be robots with replay
- Magglio Ordonez set to retire after 15 seasons
- Barry Bonds thinks it will be ‘very sad’ if he doesn’t get into the Hall on his first try
- Chris Johnson’s glove webbing had a Spidey sense at Coors Field — for one play, at least
