o
Which is...skill...Originally Posted by yankee hater
I don't buy into the idea that players can be better than they're skill level. Better than their athletic tools, yes, I suppose, but that's because there's more to baseball than just athletics, and those that play "better than their athletic ability" have heightened skills in other aspects of the game.
o
Except he couldn't hit a baseball, which is a tool. It doesn't mean he didn't know how to play the game, or that he wasn't playing up to his athletic tools, which is my point. Athletic tools can only take you so far in baseball, because it requires a lot more than just athletics.
Some players aren't very athletic, but have good hitting abilities. They see the ball well, they have good strike zone judgment, etc. They aren't playing above their abilities/skill level. They're playing to their skills.
Some players are extremely fast, limber, and athletic, but have no concept of the strike zone and can't put the bat on the ball. They're also playing to their skills - they lack the skill of hitting a baseball well.
I know you know this, but this is what I'm talking about. Dustin Pedroia may be small, skinny, not very fast, not very athletic, but he isn't succeeding because he "knows how to play the game" or because "he's a baseball player." He's also not playing above his head. He's succeeding because he has excellent hand-eye coordination and can place the bat on the ball with great frequency, which has nothing do with athletics.
Right, but there are reasons why they outperform the more physically gifted/maybe more intelligent players, and it's usually because hitting a baseball is extremely hard and all the athletic and even mental gifts in the world can't help you hit a baseball if you lack bat control and hand-eye coordination.It isn't that they play better than their physical skills. They are refering to the fact they may outperfrorm others who are more physically gifted, and maybe even more intelligent. It's the 'x' factor that the physical tools and IQ tests don't explain.
o
Please show me where I said he lacked intelligence or hand-eye coordination. The only thing I said he lacked was the ability to hit a baseball.Michael Jordan lacked intelligence, hand-eye coordination and, and what else!?
No. I'm sure that Michael Jordan performed up to his physical ability. Hitting a baseball requires way more than just simple, overall, physical ability, which is why he failed.Who ever said they were playing 'above their ability'? No one. They are performing more up to their physical ability than the non true ballplayers.
o
E=I*R
To me, this is a great point. Everything else is semantincs, but the bottom line is that there really is a lack of talented analysis covering baeball vs. other sports.
I think part of the problem is that so many people play or have played baseball that there's an assumption of a general understanding, so many of the programming people feel that it's unnecessary to get into much analytical detail. Personally, I think the exact opposite is true. Since so many of us have a good general grasp of the game, I think that requires more analysis of what's actually occuring at the professional level.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
In my opinion the problem is that the "analyst" that makes this sort of comment is almost alway the colour commentator - and they are almost exclusively former players (at least on the games that I watch). While there is the occasional player that actually becomes a decent broadcaster my feeling is that most of them aren't very good at it. They might have something decent to say but they don't think of it before the next pitch.
The problem might be that it is players that "know how to play the game" that get hired as analysts - unfortunately that doesn't mean that they are at all intelligent.
o
It exists outside the booth though, on the desks of SportsCenter and Baseball Tonight, where the guys aren't meant to be color commentators, but analysts.
Registered User
I don't watch either show (don't get ESPN in Canada) so I really don't know - do the analysts tend to be former players?
o
And former failed GM's.
For a lead role in a cage
ESPN,
formerly an initialism for Entertainment and Sports Programming Network
Owned by The Walt Disney Company
Oh no, not him again
As far as what goes on in the booth, it all depends on what floats your boat. Personally I love the old school guys like Harry Caray, Jack Buck, Vin Scully, etc. because most of them cut their teeth on radio and they had to develop a way to bring the game to life for their listeners, but most of them are either gone now or retired. Vinny is one of the few left, and even though he's lost a step or two over the years he's still a joy to listen too. (Doesn't hurt that he works for the Dodgers either.) I'm amazed that he still does games entirely on his own, with no "analyst".
Harry Caray often times didn't give two ***** about what was actually going on in the game at a particular point in time, but he was still entertaining. Steve Stone was a great foil for Harry.
E=I*R
See though, that's the thing. Even simply describing the play in great detail is better than What we usually get from TV color commentators. The other alternative of course is to get:because most of them cut their teeth on radio
in great big doses, which Harry Carry was certainly good for.he was still entertaining
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Valentine Lake Horror
I found Caray to be annoying as h.e.l.l. Scully....excellent.
Master of Ale!
I think a lot of the issues in sports coverage can be traced to who is doing the coverage. What exactly is Mike Ditka going to teach about football? Aside from the fact he can barely speak coherently...what...how to ridiculously blow an entire draft for a running back? How to continually choose terrible quarterbacks to lead the team?
Or Mike Milbury in hockey, who goes down as one of the worst GM's in ANY sport over the past 20 or so years?
Or Steve Phillips in baseball?
Why are we constantly being fed a steady stream of these people? What sort of analysis can one expect from people who were fired due to rank incompetence?
o
Steve Phillips thinks that the Yankees should trade Phil Hughes to the Reds for Jared Burton.
Yep.
Reply With Quote
