Talent vs. Practice

[Ken Krause]

Ken - I'm buying what you're selling; however, while I don't believe that there is a genetic predisposition to specifically be a softball or basketball etc. star, I do think that overall "athleticism" is genetically predisposed. As noted above, its the cultivation and development of that talent that determines the ultimate performance ceiling. All other things being relatively equal, hard work wins out.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I completely agree with that. There's nothing that makes you a softball star, or basketball star, per se. But there are genetic advantages that allow you to perform better with less effort. Some kids are built for speed, some for power, some for endurance. Those are the genetic factors, and while they can be influenced you're going to have trouble teaching most big, strong, big-boned kids to be fast. NFL players seem to be an exception, but that's a whole other discussion.

Better natural hand-eye coordination will give you an early advantage. But it won't necessarily keep you the top infielder if others develop their skills and techniques.

 

[Bishop]

Bishop - I hear what you're saying! FWIW, the Spudster was 5'6" Spud Webb NBA & ABA Statistics | Basketball-Reference.com

HA! that's what happens when you surround yourself with giants. Even an average height guy looks like a shorty.

Chewing that point a little more. I guess it's a good thing that Taylor Schopy, Angelina Mexicano and Kelly Montalvo didn't listen to all the people that surely told them they were too small to play D1 ball, much less top programs. I think that personal drive, support from family, friends and coaches combined with quality instruction are the most likely catalysts for thier success. Much more so than some undefinable spark in thier genetic code that allowed them to succeed where others have failed.

Don't get me wrong, having drive, support and great instruction isn't a guarantee by any means in my book. After all there are 10's or 100's of players with equal drive, support and instruction that don't reach thier goals for every one that does. The variables involved in who makes thier goals and who doesn't are so numerous and varied that I refuse to give up on a player based on some unidentifiable mystic thing. More likely I'm not instructing the player the way she needs it done to 'get it'. That means I need to work harder to figure it out, not shrug my shoulders and say she doesn't have any 'talent'. I'm fully prepared to dive on the grenade in the event my players fail to meet thier goals because of poor mechanics or game knowledge. I know some will fail and it will be partly my fault because I don't know everything there is to know about the game and instruction. But I try.

 

[SnocatzDad]

"Don't expect training to overcome athleticism in the long run. Better athletes can put in same work (and sometimes in much less time) to better end results".

This is the quote that started this thread. Note I specifically did not use the word talent. I'm pretty close to Ken on believing talent is a myth beyond slight genetic advantages. Athleticism is something that can be developed, but it usually takes a back seat to skill development in our sport to the detriment of the kids. If you grow up playing soccer, basketball, volleyball, hockey, football or almost any other sport you will reap immediate benefits by being faster, stronger, higher jumping than your peers and therefore those sports concentrate early and often on developing athleticism. Swinging a bat at a moving ball, pitching, throwing, even catching are skills. Jumping higher won't help you hit, running fast won't help you pitch. Therefore at a youth level way to many coaches focus almost exclusively on skill development.

If you were on a youth soccer field, the fastest kid on the field is the stud, and almost every kid out there would be striving every day to be faster. On a youth ball diamond the fastest kid might be dismissed or passed over because: she can't hit a lick, she can't throw strikes, she's throws hard but not accurately. It takes much longer to develop athleticism than it does to teach skills, but IME almost every tryout is based on skill level and athleticism is secondary. As the kids get older there is a law of diminishing returns on skill development and at that time kids with similar skill levels tend to get sorted out by athleticisim. IMO you can teach a kid who is a great athlete the skills they need to competent in a year( not pitching, but other skills), on the other side, if you take a kid who is skilled but not athletic, you can train up their athleticism but the process is much slower and your not likely to take a kid with a 4.5 sec home to first and turn them into a 3.0 sec in less than 3 years which is why college coaches prefer athletes that are skill deficeint over skilled kids that are athletically deficient.

 

[jinjet95]

Congratulations on the grandbabies, druer. I'm sure you'll have softballs in their hands before their first birthdays. My DGD is 2 1/2 and if we don't keep an eye out, someone's likely to get beaned. If it's shaped like a ball, she throws it.

 

[Mrek]

"Don't expect training to overcome athleticism in the long run. Better athletes can put in same work (and sometimes in much less time) to better end results".

This is the quote that started this thread. Note I specifically did not use the word talent. I'm pretty close to Ken on believing talent is a myth beyond slight genetic advantages. Athleticism is something that can be developed, but it usually takes a back seat to skill development in our sport to the detriment of the kids. If you grow up playing soccer, basketball, volleyball, hockey, football or almost any other sport you will reap immediate benefits by being faster, stronger, higher jumping than your peers and therefore those sports concentrate early and often on developing athleticism. Swinging a bat at a moving ball, pitching, throwing, even catching are skills. Jumping higher won't help you hit, running fast won't help you pitch. Therefore at a youth level way to many coaches focus almost exclusively on skill development.

If you were on a youth soccer field, the fastest kid on the field is the stud, and almost every kid out there would be striving every day to be faster. On a youth ball diamond the fastest kid might be dismissed or passed over because: she can't hit a lick, she can't throw strikes, she's throws hard but not accurately. It takes much longer to develop athleticism than it does to teach skills, but IME almost every tryout is based on skill level and athleticism is secondary. As the kids get older there is a law of diminishing returns on skill development and at that time kids with similar skill levels tend to get sorted out by athleticisim. IMO you can teach a kid who is a great athlete the skills they need to competent in a year( not pitching, but other skills), on the other side, if you take a kid who is skilled but not athletic, you can train up their athleticism but the process is much slower and your not likely to take a kid with a 4.5 sec home to first and turn them into a 3.0 sec in less than 3 years which is why college coaches prefer athletes that are skill deficeint over skilled kids that are athletically deficient.

One reason why athleticism is viewed secondarily to skill level, especially early in player development (say 14U and below), is that Coaches and Daddy-Coaches are concerned about winning rather than player development. Some take this viewpoint beacuse they may not coach beyond the 8-10-12U levels where athleticism may not even appear at those ages. For others it is always about winning and being able to say their 10U team went 45-5. It is the same discussion held on these forums regarding "Throwing strikes" versus "Throwing hard" and why some coaches gush over their 52MPH 14U pitchers that hit spots %90 of the time. Then are upset when those girls are not given much consideration in recruitment time. It is the difference in being a star at the beginning (8-10-12U) or at the end (D1-D2-D3).

In the end, athleticism (or talent, if you like) will always win out given the reasonably same level of skill training. In the end, it's why they call it "athletics" rather than "skilled competition". Darts and Poker are examples of "skilled competition".

 

[LAdad]

In Talent is Overrated, they look at people we would all consider to be talented, and go back to when they were very young. In every case, they did not stand out over others their age in raw ability. But they adopted a different attitude early on, and practiced with a different type of intensity, both in terms of their engagement in the practice and the amount of it they did. Both books quote 10,000 hours of "deep practice" -- mind-numbingly dull but thorough practice -- as the magic number.

[...] they were talking about what it takes to get to the very top of a sport, the world of music, writing, or other activities where it is believed that some have more innate talent than others. So in our case, becoming National Team members, as opposed to playing at a D1 school [...]

Looks like DD only has about 9,000 hours to go before she can try out for the National Team . At her current pace, she'll be the first centenarian on the team.

10,000 hours may be possible for full-time professional athletes who reach their peak in their late 20s, but for softball, where almost all play stops after college, that doesn't seem feasible, not when you actually do your HS and college homework, get enough sleep to stay in shape while you're still growing, and maybe even have a life.

 

[Amy in AZ.]

10,000 hours at 10 hours a day = 1000 days (roughly 2.7 years)

So, at 5 hours a day it would = 2000 days (roughly 5 1/2 years)

2.5 hours a day, would = 4000 days (roughly 11 years)

I guess that is why tennis stars and gymnasts have to leave home at an early age to go live at their training sites.

 

[Ken Krause]

Generally speaking, the 10,000 hours is usually expected to be accomplished in about 10 years. So if you start playing at age 8, and work diligently at it, you're ready to rock at 18. Of course, this is why that level of athlete is so rare. You have to really want it to get those 10,000 hours.

 

[LAdad]

Generally speaking, the 10,000 hours is usually expected to be accomplished in about 10 years. So if you start playing at age 8, and work diligently at it, you're ready to rock at 18. Of course, this is why that level of athlete is so rare. You have to really want it to get those 10,000 hours.

I don't buy it. This wasn't just exercise, but mind-numbing "deep practice". I take it that running around the playground doesn't count. Shagging balls doesn't count; standing in the infield while the coach hits balls doesn't count; sitting on the bench during a game when someone else is batting doesn't count; standing in the outfield during a game doesn't count; etc. etc. 1000 hours per year is 20 hours per week. But 20 hours per week of "deep practice" probably means 30 to 40 hours on the softball field. A professional can do that, but an 8-year old can't, neither physically nor mentally. I doubt that anyone can do that until they're at least 15, but which teenager or college student has that many hours available? 28-30 is more realistic than 18. And that matches when most professionals in MLB, NFL, NBA reach their peak.

 

[LAdad]

Athleticism is something that can be developed, but it usually takes a back seat to skill development in our sport to the detriment of the kids. If you grow up playing soccer, basketball, volleyball, hockey, football or almost any other sport you will reap immediate benefits by being faster, stronger, higher jumping than your peers and therefore those sports concentrate early and often on developing athleticism. Swinging a bat at a moving ball, pitching, throwing, even catching are skills. Jumping higher won't help you hit, running fast won't help you pitch. Therefore at a youth level way to many coaches focus almost exclusively on skill development.

[...] IMO you can teach a kid who is a great athlete the skills they need to competent in a year( not pitching, but other skills), on the other side, if you take a kid who is skilled but not athletic, you can train up their athleticism but the process is much slower and your not likely to take a kid with a 4.5 sec home to first and turn them into a 3.0 sec in less than 3 years which is why college coaches prefer athletes that are skill deficeint over skilled kids that are athletically deficient.

If this were true, then why do professional sports organizations pay so much for free agents in their 30s? Someone in their early 20s is going to be stronger and faster; yet the skill and the ability to play the game, that's what these clubs pay the big money for.