Is Psudo Science is killing hitters....

[omg]

Originally Posted by Jake Patterson

"If you wake up in the morning and the first thing you think about is baseball, then you're a baseball player. If you don't you're just a kid who plays ball."
....

Might have to borrow that quote.

Speaking of quotes, they are actually more valuable than video. I.E quotes from good hitters, in my view.

[Ursa Major]

Originally Posted by 1chapterahead

I have always gravitated to systems that were hands-on and feel based. My son and I are both visual learners who can translate the description of feel into physical movements. We use video to check those movements against high level players, and elicit feedback from our support network. Needless to say, it works for us.

You raise an excellent point (or two or three, actually) in this post. Teaching has to be connected to the way a kid learns best, which will vary. So, you have to be skilled as a coach to try various teaching methodologies. You can't stamp your feet and insist that a kid ought to be able to "get" what you're teaching by using your favorite method. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

Let me make one suggestion to add to your book of tricks -- maybe not so much for use with 1CB, but with other kids (especially those with fathers who are skeptical of what you're teaching). What I often say to them is this -- "I've videotaped a bunch of your game/BP/wiffle ball swings and I've pulled out and replayed over and over in slow motion your very best two swings. THAT is your swing. And, our job here is not to change your swing, but to give you the tools to repeat your best swing consistently." Some of this is BS, but there's a lot of truth to it -- even lame kids will in the course of 50 swings get it as good as they can get it even if by accident, and you're best off getting them to repeat that motion that they've already done.

I mention this in the context of your first paragraph, because you talk about using video to compare kids to major league hitters. That's fine, but I think it's also good to keep a library of their own good swings as a template and to help assess when they're regressing. It's very helpful with Ursa Minor, because he has a tendency to 'forget' his front hip/leg loading. So, I can pull out the four best shots he's hit this fall and say, "See, in each one you had a very nice load, but here's what you did yesterday, when you didn't load and fanned out your front knee too early." It especially helps with teenagers, because it doesn't become an issue of "I'm the Dad and I'm right", but rather you're using the kid's own actions and results to make your point for you.

There are other popular systems used by many here that are not based on feel. Some of these systems, to my knowledge were created around lab models, bio-mechanics and kinetic movements. Many of the drills I've seen from these systems seem constraining, though Epsteins torque drill is not a thing of beauty, so I concede drills are not a good indicator of a systems athletic freedoms.

So I'm curious to know. What type of system works best for you all? and why? Also, if I misstated the blueprint or foundation of any system, I'm sorry in advance. You are welcome to clear that up during your reply.

I think people unnecessarily worry about the seeming "constraining" effect of some drills or cues (such as 'maintaining the box'). I think they enforce some discipline in muscle movements to counteract both slop and harmful muscle action. When it comes time to swing in a game, usually energy, adrenalin and desire will add the extra 'oomph' to get beyond the constraints. But, again, it depends on the kid. For example, Ursa Minor sometimes does get too mechanical, so I have to encourage him to "go outside the box" (if you will) and introduce pre-launch movements (like a little mini-Sheffield bat waggle) to get his motor started early. It's one of the reasons I've been following some of the hand movement stuff that is coming out of ... that other place.

[cartersball]

Originally Posted by Cannonball

Cartersball, I disagree that any kid can be a baseball player. It takes a lot to play the game. Not the least of which is a positive support system. Sometimes that means having parents who keep their hands off. Sometimes that means active parents. No two kids are alike. Then, the genetic factor can not be diminished. Some wish to. My child has to over come this. I was very good. I had no athletic ability. Still, I'd be one of the first picked. Why? Intangibles! Some say that they hate to lose. I'm calling BS on that. It's easy to say but what do they do to win? My child loves the game. She is not a natural athlete. However, you will never see her in the wrong position or watching a play. This past weekend, the catcher overthrew 3rd on a steal attempt. My dd was playing LF that game. She caught a one hopper and the runner froze. Intangibles. Again, the problem we often see, and Jake had alluded to this several times in other threads, is that parents can't accept their role in all of this and so, some become so overbearing that their kids can't breath. Much of the stuff being posted in other threads will absolutely kill a young player's drive when they are told that they aren't measuring up to a MLB player's skill level. What happened to having a good laugh and allowing a player to discover? I believe that one of my best assets as a coach is that I'm along the journey as well as the player. I ask questions for understanding. They participate at their speed. We win. I don't "dummy it down." However, I don't go overboard. I guess to each their own but I think that the manner in which all of this info is passed on is as important as the info itself. JMHO!

I understand completely what it is you are conveying here CB. Again though in my definition of PLAYER I am talking about drive, heart, dedication, and the intangibles. Not athleticism, or natural ability. Anyone with the drive to work hard, the heart to handle defeat, the determination to get back in the box, and the intangibles can be a player. They may not make it all the way to the show, but I can assure you they will make something of themselves involving this game. Believe me when I say I have seen kids who I thought would never hit a baseball because they lacked the athletic ability to swing a bat properly stick it out and become very sucessful young ball players.

[Cannonball]

Originally Posted by cartersball

I understand completely what it is you are conveying here CB. Again though in my definition of PLAYER I am talking about drive, heart, dedication, and the intangibles. Not athleticism, or natural ability. Anyone with the drive to work hard, the heart to handle defeat, the determination to get back in the box, and the intangibles can be a player. They may not make it all the way to the show, but I can assure you they will make something of themselves involving this game. Believe me when I say I have seen kids who I thought would never hit a baseball because they lacked the athletic ability to swing a bat properly stick it out and become very sucessful young ball players.

I do agree with this!

[cartersball]

Makes me glad to know I am not the only dogmatic person who is smoking something that other people would like to have some of, as previously mentioned in this thread.

[ssarge]

I think this is a really good thread, which I have read with great interest and have learned from.

A couple of observations - one guy's opinion, worth about what you paid for it, I suppose.


1) If you eliminate pure agenda, something Jake and CB work so hard to do, (and I very much appreciate their efforts), I think that most hitting disagreements come down to people approaching the problem differently. "Agenda" aside, I think that 80% of hitting arguments are because one guy is talking about a CUE(s), and one guy is trying to describe scientific reality. Which is about like a man trying to describe sex to a woman, and vice versa.

Both approaches are valid. What would be great is a general understanding that they ARE two different approaches, and for each of us to respect which approach any specific poster is using. Including ourselves.

There are dangers to just using cues, because they mean different things to different hitters. Absent understanding by the student of the context, cues will be understood at the most basic useage of the words in the English language. The "swing level" cue seems to me a great one. Sure, in context, many / most using this cue will mean getting on plane, and swinging level to the flight / trajectory of a ball. Which I think we'd all agree is pretty sage advice. Absent context though, the average kid will ABSOLUTELY take that to mean level to the ground. Without proper context, that is what the words MEAN.

My daughter and I are over 250,000 swings down the journey together. There is one area of her swing which has been a huge frustration to me, and I have tried DOZENS of cues to fix it. With no long-term results. She has compensated, and has done well despite the flaw. The other day, I worked with her at her college the day before a game, and we took some video, then reviewed it in her apartment. I was STUNNED to learn that what I was seeing / trying to fix / suggesting ways to fix, yelling about, sweraing at, for much of 250,000 swings, was, in HER mind, happening two frames before what I was referencing. Pretty hard for her to apply a cue under those circumstances. Shame on me.

Cues are good if they engender the desired behavior / mechanics. ANY cue. If 'squish the bug" works to gte a kid to the right place, it's a GREAT cue. I know from experience, that won't happen often, but with one kid on any given day, it might. But that cue could never be universal, and almost NO cue should EVER be universall.

Still, cues are a huge part of instruction, and are extremely valuable.


And on the other hand, the scientific - for lack of a better word - minutiae would KILL any kid who dwells on it. I'm of the opinion that thinking about ANYTHING mechanical when facing live / game pitching will kill a swing. Be that as it may, NO ONE could possibly apply the minutiae that gets discussed on some occasions. So why do it? Well, some people describing the swing in this way / at this level are doing it to show you how smart they are. It is an intellectual exercise, and in some cases, an exercise of ego. You can go on messages boards on ANY subject and find the same exercise being played out. By people claiming to be experts, and demonstrating their "expertise" by regurgitating minutiae, but never actually applying it. To me, that is a waste of time, but hey, it's a free country.

That said, there are others involved in incredible detail about io-mechanics, kineseology, physics, etc. because they really want to understand how things WORK. NOT to regurgiate that info to a kid, but because they understand it IS about cues and designing drills and communicating with kids in a way that is a) specific to the individual kid, and b) based on underlying reality.

In my mind, this is an excellent approach, perhaps the most valid approach. While I personally have little use for the ego / intellectual exercise approach, I GREATLY value the perspectibe of people who are really tryingto understand the swing "under the covers" in order to use that knowledge to tailor an instructional approach. In general for all hitters, and specifically with each individual hitters. I've seen Englishbey - and NO ONE can get more detailed about the underlying realities of the swing than he - give as many as 10 cues and use at least that many drills to enforce a single aspect of the swing to a single kid. And he keeps trying until something starts to make the light bulb go on. NONE of those cues are remotely scientific. If anything, they are patently superficial. But they are ALL based on a very sound understanding of the underlying forces / mechanics of the swing, and on sports training and kineseology applied specifically to efficiently swinging a bat. He has great success when working with individual hitters, and I am sure there are many others who do likewise.


Back to my predicate - if you can separate out agenda, and ignore the most eggregious offenders, then determine of the poster is describing a cue(s) they have found useful OR is trying to describe underlying reality, you'll probably find (as I have) there is less disagreement than there initially appears to be.

Good luck with that - it isn;t easy, and we all get impatient. But I'll stand on my observation that 80% of non-agenda-driven disagreement comes from a failure to understand that one guy is talking about how to communicate a swing fundamental, and the other guy is trying to understand in his technical of terms as he requires to get his arms fully around it WHY it is a swing fundamental. And the most sincere in the second group are doing it for the sole purpose of being able to communicate descriptions / cues to their students.


Second general observation continued on next post. . . .

[ssarge]

2) I don't agree that successful hitting is MOSTLY because of natural ability.

Everything else being equal, I would MUCH prefer a hitter begin the journey possessing superior athletic gifts. The people at the top of the pyramid at every advanced level of play - baseball and softball - have incredible athletic giftedness, AND great mechanics.

Most of us, thouh, having NOT won the sperm lottery and possessing .9999 levels of athletic giftedness, have to look for another approach to the problem. Fortunately, I believe we can.

The next level of the pyramid - it seems to me - is made up of two groups of people. Those with great athletic giftedness (talent) and decent but not optimal mechanics, and those with superb mechanics but more modest athletic gifts.

Either can work, because I believe hitting is as much acquired skill as natural talent. I've worked with an awful lot of kids in the past 10 years - well into the hundreds - and seen a lot of modest athetets go a long way as hitters. To college, for sure, even starring in college.


But how does a modestly gifted athlete ACQUIRE the skill? As Mark and others have indicated, learning to hit is probably the supreme example of trial-and-error. Good instruction can shorten that process, but absolutely can't eliminate it. There will ALWAYS be a need for many, many reps.

Emulation is another way to shorten the trial-and-error process. And I do believe that to an extent, young hitters emulate others. And should. But it is not the panacea that some claim (so says me, anyway).

a) First, a kid may choose to emulate one of those kids whjo is athletically gifted, but whose mechanics are less than ideal. I hear a lot of girls say they want to emulate Bustos. Well, that's great if you have her athletecism (even today at 200++ pounds, she is one of the fastest runners on the US National team, unbelievably), size and strength. But most likely, kids will emulate the most successful kid on their OWN team. Well, at age 12, that is almost NEVER the kid whose mechanics are developing most optimally, It is almost always the most athletic kid. Perhapos not the best emulation model.

b) Emulation is nowher near as easy for kids today as it was when most of us grew up, because the vey nature of how kids learn the sport has changed. I'm a little over 50, and when I was a kid, I spent hours every day playing in unsupevised pick-up games with kids at the park / sandlot / school. Sometimes from noon till dark. No supervision, no adults, no instruction.

Today NO parent would let his kid go to the park / sandlot / school from noon to dark without supervision. And if they did, the kid would find orange pylons on the park fields, and the school field locked. We just don;t do that anymore. Instead, the game is highly supervised. Instruction is very supervised, and kids learn in a far more structured formal way than we did. They go to hitting stations and work one-on-one. They almost never scrimmage. They seldom even get to WATCH other kids hone their craft. Even if the opportunity exists, it wouldn't even occur to the typical kid to watch, because they have been exposed to a different methodology for learning - the instructional model. Quite simply, they don't even think to look at their peers in an evaluative way.

That isn't all bad, but it isn't all good, either. It IS reality.

And so, for most kids today, emulation is NOT as valuable a tool as it was for us growing up.


Probably, there are other ways to shorten the absolutely necessary trial-and-error process required to become a really good hitter. Like monkeys with a typewriter who will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare through random repeition, trial-and-error will eventually work in learning to hit. But the window for learning is SO short that the process has to be accelerated (or the kid has to get REALLY lucky) in order to be successful.

Emulation of others is one way to accomplish this, and a very good way. The realities of how the sport is structured today make this very, very difficult. Leaving instruction as the best opportunity for shortening the learning curve. And obviously, on that level, the devil is in the dtails, which is why we all spend the time we do trying to understand how bets to instruct.

Best regards,

Scott

[Jake Patterson]

Originally Posted by calgofo

Jake, perhaps you are uanaware of my reputation as vocal pedagog. I think we together can have you making Pavorotti weep with envy. 6 hours a week for the next year should do the trick. My rates are 150hr.

I am humbled... When can you fit me in?

[dominik]

Originally Posted by ssarge

2) I don't agree that successful hitting is MOSTLY because of natural ability.

Everything else being equal, I would MUCH prefer a hitter begin the journey possessing superior athletic gifts. The people at the top of the pyramid at every advanced level of play - baseball and softball - have incredible athletic giftedness, AND great mechanics.

Most of us, thouh, having NOT won the sperm lottery and possessing .9999 levels of athletic giftedness, have to look for another approach to the problem. Fortunately, I believe we can.

The next level of the pyramid - it seems to me - is made up of two groups of people. Those with great athletic giftedness (talent) and decent but not optimal mechanics, and those with superb mechanics but more modest athletic gifts.

Either can work, because I believe hitting is as much acquired skill as natural talent. I've worked with an awful lot of kids in the past 10 years - well into the hundreds - and seen a lot of modest athetets go a long way as hitters. To college, for sure, even starring in college.


But how does a modestly gifted athlete ACQUIRE the skill? As Mark and others have indicated, learning to hit is probably the supreme example of trial-and-error. Good instruction can shorten that process, but absolutely can't eliminate it. There will ALWAYS be a need for many, many reps.

Emulation is another way to shorten the trial-and-error process. And I do believe that to an extent, young hitters emulate others. And should. But it is not the panacea that some claim (so says me, anyway).

a) First, a kid may choose to emulate one of those kids whjo is athletically gifted, but whose mechanics are less than ideal. I hear a lot of girls say they want to emulate Bustos. Well, that's great if you have her athletecism (even today at 200++ pounds, she is one of the fastest runners on the US National team, unbelievably), size and strength. But most likely, kids will emulate the most successful kid on their OWN team. Well, at age 12, that is almost NEVER the kid whose mechanics are developing most optimally, It is almost always the most athletic kid. Perhapos not the best emulation model.

b) Emulation is nowher near as easy for kids today as it was when most of us grew up, because the vey nature of how kids learn the sport has changed. I'm a little over 50, and when I was a kid, I spent hours every day playing in unsupevised pick-up games with kids at the park / sandlot / school. Sometimes from noon till dark. No supervision, no adults, no instruction.

Today NO parent would let his kid go to the park / sandlot / school from noon to dark without supervision. And if they did, the kid would find orange pylons on the park fields, and the school field locked. We just don;t do that anymore. Instead, the game is highly supervised. Instruction is very supervised, and kids learn in a far more structured formal way than we did. They go to hitting stations and work one-on-one. They almost never scrimmage. They seldom even get to WATCH other kids hone their craft. Even if the opportunity exists, it wouldn't even occur to the typical kid to watch, because they have been exposed to a different methodology for learning - the instructional model. Quite simply, they don't even think to look at their peers in an evaluative way.

That isn't all bad, but it isn't all good, either. It IS reality.

And so, for most kids today, emulation is NOT as valuable a tool as it was for us growing up.


Probably, there are other ways to shorten the absolutely necessary trial-and-error process required to become a really good hitter. Like monkeys with a typewriter who will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare through random repeition, trial-and-error will eventually work in learning to hit. But the window for learning is SO short that the process has to be accelerated (or the kid has to get REALLY lucky) in order to be successful.

Emulation of others is one way to accomplish this, and a very good way. The realities of how the sport is structured today make this very, very difficult. Leaving instruction as the best opportunity for shortening the learning curve. And obviously, on that level, the devil is in the dtails, which is why we all spend the time we do trying to understand how bets to instruct.

Best regards,

Scott

I agree somewhat.
Of course most MLB guys are great athletes but from the baseball skills hitting might be the least talent dependent.

Pitching and fielding is besiedes sound fundamentals mostly a talent thing.
No training can make a slow arm into a great pitcher or an average fielder into an ozzie smith.

With hitting still most guys are very athletic, but there are also guys who are not tremendously athletic or explosive and still kill the ball. You all know those guys.
For example manny ramirez is small and slow footed, but he kills the ball. Pete rose was also not the most athletic guy.

Of course then there are also the tremendous athletes like barry bonds or hanley ramirez, so it definitely helpes.

But if you take for ex. bo jackson who was a better athlete than any player in MLB history you see that athleticism is not all.

[scorekeeper]

Originally Posted by Cannonball

Cartersball, I disagree that any kid can be a baseball player. It takes a lot to play the game. . . .

Do you really believe baseball is such a difficult game that every kid, barring severe physical and/or mental deficiencies, can’t play it on some level? I agree that getting to the pros, college, or even HS is beyond the reach of many, after all, there are only so many spots available. But I can’t picture any team at any level that would gladly accept a player who perhaps wasn’t equal to the minimum skills level felt to be needed, but was close, and possessed a work ethic and desire as high or higher than even the best players on that team.

I think that far too often, many of us assume everyone shares our vision of what it takes to play at a certain level, and even more often impose that vision on levels far below the one we’re most involved in.

[scorekeeper]

Originally Posted by dominik

. . .Pitching and fielding is besiedes sound fundamentals mostly a talent thing. No training can make a slow arm into a great pitcher or an average fielder into an ozzie smith.

I honestly don’t think you could be more wrong. Obviously you don’t understand everything it takes to pitch or field, let alone be successful. Of course if you’re talking about HOF great, you might have a stronger argument, but that’s only because Pete Rose isn’t in there.

With hitting still most guys are very athletic, but there are also guys who are not tremendously athletic or explosive and still kill the ball. You all know those guys.
For example manny ramirez is small and slow footed, but he kills the ball. Pete rose was also not the most athletic guy.

Are you saying physical size and foot speed determine the level of athleticism someone possesses.

[soceric]

Originally Posted by cartersball

Again though in my definition of PLAYER I am talking about drive, heart, dedication, and the intangibles. Not athleticism, or natural ability. Anyone with the drive to work hard, the heart to handle defeat, the determination to get back in the box, and the intangibles can be a player. They may not make it all the way to the show, but I can assure you they will make something of themselves involving this game. Believe me when I say I have seen kids who I thought would never hit a baseball because they lacked the athletic ability to swing a bat properly stick it out and become very sucessful young ball players.

There is a great story about Edgar Gonzalez - the older brother of Adrian Gonzalez. Edgar apparantly was a pretty poor player as a youth, such that one season the coach had him bunting a lot of the time so that at least had a chance to get on base. One day he had enough of it, and the rest is history.

[dominik]

Originally Posted by scorekeeper

I honestly don’t think you could be more wrong. Obviously you don’t understand everything it takes to pitch or field, let alone be successful. Of course if you’re talking about HOF great, you might have a stronger argument, but that’s only because Pete Rose isn’t in there.



Are you saying physical size and foot speed determine the level of athleticism someone possesses.

Foot speed is a part of athleticism.
If you think of an athletic person you normally think about a guy who can run really fast and jump really high like Lebron james and not some chubby six footer like manny.
That of course doen't mean that manny is a bad athlete.

[scorekeeper]

Originally Posted by dominik

Foot speed is a part of athleticism.

Yes, it is PART of athleticism. But, so is having the kind of hand2eye coordination it takes to hit a baseball, and I’ll guarantee you that when it comes to baseball, I know which attribute would the most prized.

If you think of an athletic person you normally think about a guy who can run really fast and jump really high like Lebron james and not some chubby six footer like manny.

No, that’s what you think of, not me. My daughter was a level 9 gymnast, and IMHO, gymnasts are the greatest athletes in the world, and what I think of when I think about athleticism. Running really fast and jumping really high doesn’t get ya a whole lot in a gym meet.

That of course doen't mean that manny is a bad athlete.

Of course it doesn’t, because he’s a great athlete.

You’re just like many folks who label players based not on their baseball ability, but on something else. That’s where you make so many mistakes about not just not understanding baseball talent, but in projecting what a player will be able to do in the future.

[1chapterahead]

What are the differences between the feel vs. science based systems? What are the similarities?

Let's compile a list.

[dominik]

Originally Posted by scorekeeper

Yes, it is PART of athleticism. But, so is having the kind of hand2eye coordination it takes to hit a baseball, and I’ll guarantee you that when it comes to baseball, I know which attribute would the most prized.



No, that’s what you think of, not me. My daughter was a level 9 gymnast, and IMHO, gymnasts are the greatest athletes in the world, and what I think of when I think about athleticism. Running really fast and jumping really high doesn’t get ya a whole lot in a gym meet.



Of course it doesn’t, because he’s a great athlete.

You’re just like many folks who label players based not on their baseball ability, but on something else. That’s where you make so many mistakes about not just not understanding baseball talent, but in projecting what a player will be able to do in the future.

I agree that baseball skill is a very complex thing. It's not so easy to predict.

Athleticism is only a part of baseball skill. Of course you can say athleticism is baseball skill but most people would atribute things like speed, explosive strength, flexibility... as athlticism.

The are all great athletes, would you argue that there is a difference in athleticsm(not baseball skill!!!!) between players like thome or Manny on the one hand and guys like Mays, Bonds or griffey in the other hand.

Both are great athletes, but those are definitely different types of athletes.
If you would let both groups compete in a decathlon(as the ultimate measurement oif athleticism) which group would win?

I think this only solidyfies my point that baseball skill is not easily predictable. Of course you need hand eye coordination and quick reflexes or you are hopeless, but there are also kids who are not obviously the gretest athletes, but could excell in baseball.

[1chapterahead]

I'll start:

I believe in and teach (in no particular order):

1. A rear hip thrust and pivot point
2. A hand pivot point (swivel)
3. 2 hemispheres of the body working independently and together
4. Tilt involves front elbow jut/rear shoulder dip/rear leg hinge (sit)
5. The swing weights the front foot
6. Early bat-speed
7. Bat tipping
8. Flat palm hitting
9. Staying inside the ball

[scorekeeper]

Originally Posted by dominik

I agree that baseball skill is a very complex thing. It's not so easy to predict.

Athleticism is only a part of baseball skill. Of course you can say athleticism is baseball skill but most people would atribute things like speed, explosive strength, flexibility... as athlticism.

The are all great athletes, would you argue that there is a difference in athleticsm(not baseball skill!!!!) between players like thome or Manny on the one hand and guys like Mays, Bonds or griffey in the other hand.

Both are great athletes, but those are definitely different types of athletes.
If you would let both groups compete in a decathlon(as the ultimate measurement oif athleticism) which group would win?

I wouldn’t agree at all that Mays, Bonds, or Griffey are more “athletic” than ManRam or Thome. A guy having the ability to run faster than another guy doesn’t mean he’s more athletic. All it means is he runs faster.

You’re grasping at straws trying to guess who’d do better at the 10 events of a decathlon. Baseball players don’t train for such things, and I have no idea who’d do best if given time to train properly. But on the other hand, I DON’T CARE!

I think this only solidyfies my point that baseball skill is not easily predictable. Of course you need hand eye coordination and quick reflexes or you are hopeless, but there are also kids who are not obviously the gretest athletes, but could excell in baseball.

Why does a pitcher need much hand to eye coordination or quick reflexes? Over the years there have been many many very good ball players who wouldn’t be often considered great athletes.

I guess I’m not followin’ what it is you’re getting at.

When I read the following, then read things like the above, I’m left with my head spinning.

Originally Posted by dominik

Pitching and fielding is besiedes sound fundamentals mostly a talent thing. No training can make a slow arm into a great pitcher or an average fielder into an ozzie smith.

[Ursa Major]

When I think of baseball-relevant athleticism, I think most often not of raw strength or speed, but some nebulous concept of "instintively understanding how your body works and what it is doing at any given moment." Even if they don't play much baseball, if you tell them to pick up a bat and try to get their hips, torso and arms into a swing in that order, they'll take about five swings to smoothly get those links coordinated, and then start hitting ropes into the outfield. (Sure, they'll flail at curves, but hitting them is a much longer learning curve.)

I had a friend in high school, Andy G. who was small, of average-plus speed, and not particularly strong, but he could pick up any sport and do it well. For example, though our team had the best tennis program in the area by far (most of the country clubs were in our district), he decided he wanted to play tennis, and after a few months of work made the squad. Those are the guys who seem able to get to the next level in baseball, where raw physical skills are less important.

So, getting to Scorekeep's query, "Why does a pitcher need good hand-eye coordination?" It's not so much that ability, but rather the 'coordination' (along with a Nuke LaRoosh-like arm infrastructure) to maximize all these links in the chain to make it happen, along with the mind-body connection to do it over and over again so as to be able to throw a ball with movement from 60 feet away and have the ball go through a pinhole about 8 inches in diameter.

Scorekeeper said: Do you really believe baseball is such a difficult game that every kid, barring severe physical and/or mental deficiencies, can’t play it on some level? I agree that getting to the pros, college, or even HS is beyond the reach of many, after all, there are only so many spots available. But I can’t picture any team at any level that would gladly accept a player who perhaps wasn’t equal to the minimum skills level felt to be needed, but was close, and possessed a work ethic and desire as high or higher than even the best players on that team.

I think that far too often, many of us assume everyone shares our vision of what it takes to play at a certain level, and even more often impose that vision on levels far below the one we’re most involved in.

Hallelujah, Brother Scorekeeper. (It's Sunday, so I can talk this way.) I often try to preach this here, but it's good to have someone else remind us that we rarely are actually involved with kids or adults who play at the levels that are relevant to our debates. Sure, it's nice to pretend we're hitting coaches or managers of MLB teams, but for many of us the more relevant challenge is trying to help squeeze some improvement (and, hence, enjoyment of the game) out of a bottom ten players on a 12-kid roster. (The top two probably don't need us.)

Scott ("SSarge"), two excellent posts; you don't say much here anymore, but when you do, it's always worthwhile. I'm curious about the comment that "Most of us, thouh, having NOT won the sperm lottery and possessing .9999 levels of athletic giftedness, have to look for another approach to the problem." Are you saying that each of us guys may have produced one sperm that had the makings of producing a pro athlete but that one just didn't come in first in the race? I wonder -- I doubt if that could have been produced by any combination DNA coming out of my system. Or are you just loosely saying that the stork just happened to drop us in a shallow gene pool?

[Ursa Major]

Originally Posted by Jake Patterson
"If you wake up in the morning and the first thing you think about is baseball, then you're a baseball player. If you don't you're just a kid who plays ball."

Jake, let me expand upon this a little bit, because I think it goes into the question of what differentiates a player who reaches his potential, and one who goes beyond it.

The one freshman on our HS team last Spring who was called up to the varsity when the frosh season ended is a kid I've know since he was 9. He was alway in the top ten percent of the league's players and was maybe in the top 30% in terms of size and athletic ability, but not by much. But he played in every league he could as he got older (much to the annoyance of coaches and teammates who would find that he'd constantly have conflicts). (His mom admitted to me that she spends about $10K a year on his baseball activities.) He was a little slow, so he got a personal trainer to work on speed and to knock a little doughiness out of him. But, it was all inner-directed, and he's continued to improve. Clearly, by your terms, this kid is a ballplayer.

By contrast, Ursa Minor has always been in the bottom quarter of his league in size and athleticism until he finally started to get his late growth. But, he's rarely woken up thinking baseball in the morning, as he's just got too many other interests (at which his brain is better matched). (And, speaking of genetic lotteries, I married a short, unathletic, Jewish Phi Beta Kappa, so we won only on the academic side of that lottery -- he's a straight-A student). And, he's not always willing to go out and practice baseball -- he's playing XBox with a buddy right now and wants to play catch with a football later. But, if you put him on a baseball field, his mind is always churning about what should be done and he's the first to volunteer to be the first base coach. (For example, I complimented him after yesterday's game about successfully sending a batter-runner to second on his single after the throw from the outfield on his single went through to the plate; UMinor's response? "As soon as the ball dropped in the outfield, I looked to see if the first baseman was going to be in position to cut off the throw to the plate and, when I saw he wasn't there, I knew to immediately send the guy.") And he's constantly standing up from the dinner table while we're watching a game on TV and trying pick-off moves inspired by what he's seen, asking, "Would this be a balk?"

Contrast this with his friend Jake who, for the third game in a row was the on-deck batter when there was a play at the plate and, for the third straight time, did not get into position to help the runner know whether and where to slide. (Further contrast, their teammate Taylor on another similar play at the plate ran up and yelled loudly, "Get dirrrrrty!" -- needless to say, the guy slid.

So, even if UMinor doesn't devote himself to baseball as much as guy #1 and doesn't wake up thinking about baseball, he's still a "ballplayer". Maybe I'm biased, but that's my definition.

[shake-n-bake]

UM, I think you hit the nail on the head - it's a combination of genuine love for a sport + exceeding one's potential.

There's one other thing that seems to be overlooked, and that is every sport has more than one prototypical athletic type. My son for example increasingly thinks of himself as a football player whose greatest athletic talent is pitching.

His first love isn't baseball, it's pitching. He's got an incredible amount of "want-to." At the end of the day though, I doubt that'd mean much if his dreams were of being a SS or an OF.

He could be a very good basketball player, but basketball is "fun" not a passion. Here too, if he wanted to be a PG or make a JHS or HS team as a perimeter player - no way. If he had the desire to be a low glory/low post player that rebounds, plays defense, and is a bull in a china closet down low - he could, and it's not that he cannot shoot.

There are half-backs and DBs and WRs. Then there's linemen. Then there's FBs and TEs and LBs in football. Not everyone has the skill set to be a running back. Not everyone has the size to be an OT.

The key is maximizing your potential by leveraging any advantages that you have. With any luck that matches up with you're passionate about.

[Jake Patterson]

Originally Posted by Ursa Major

So, even if UMinor doesn't devote himself to baseball as much as guy #1 and doesn't wake up thinking about baseball, he's still a "ballplayer". Maybe I'm biased, but that's my definition.

There's nothing wrong with a kid who plays ball!

When Is was in the service there was another example of the above...

As a soldier I thought we were dedicated to the cause... Training for a spell with the 10th Special Forces, I found how far off our definition truly was. To us it was a job, a job we were proud to do and we did it well. To the SF guys - it was a way of life.

[ssarge]

Are you saying that each of us guys may have produced one sperm that had the makings of producing a pro athlete but that one just didn't come in first in the race? I wonder -- I doubt if that could have been produced by any combination DNA coming out of my system. Or are you just loosely saying that the stork just happened to drop us in a shallow gene pool?

I was trying to hard to be clever. I meant only that most of us are not born possessing world class athletic ability.

Best regards,

Scott