What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?

[HoustonGM]

Extremely well put.

[bucher34]

Football and basketball are different from baseball in those certain aspects that you were discussing.

Larry Bird gave guys like Danny Ainge the opportunity to shoot the three in crunch time by drawing defenders when it mattered most. Kobe Bryant takes over the game in tight situations being a distraction and distributing the ball to the open man. They don't necessarily make the "skills" of the players better, but they give them the opportunities to use their skills.

NFL is the same way. The so-called "Two Minute Drill". Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Troy Aikman, etc. Those guys could/can will their teams to victory by opening up opportunities. They make the tight passes in the hurry-up. They don't get flustered. They keep their teammates calm and confident. They don't improve the "skills" of the players, they just give them the opportunity to use those skills.

[Swampdog]

Football and basketball are different from baseball in those certain aspects that you were discussing.

Larry Bird gave guys like Danny Ainge the opportunity to shoot the three in crunch time by drawing defenders when it mattered most. Kobe Bryant takes over the game in tight situations being a distraction and distributing the ball to the open man. They don't necessarily make the "skills" of the players better, but they give them the opportunities to use their skills.

NFL is the same way. The so-called "Two Minute Drill". Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Troy Aikman, etc. Those guys could/can will their teams to victory by opening up opportunities. They make the tight passes in the hurry-up. They don't get flustered. They keep their teammates calm and confident. They don't improve the "skills" of the players, they just give them the opportunity to use those skills.

Well, didn't I say that already?

I agree. Thats exactly what I said...or think I said. They are not actually making anyone else better, in the strictest sense. They are making it easier for other players to perform better.

Additionally, I want to point out that baseball requires less teamwork than any of the other major team sports. Baseball is, in many ways, an individual sport, to a point. Basketball requires that plays be run constantly, and team play on defense as well (helping, switching, etc.) In football, of course, all eleven men on offense have a role to play each time the ball is snapped. Same on defense.

Baseball requires no such cooperative effort. There is more teamwork in doubles in tennis than there is in baseball. Thats yet another reason that the impact of the so-called intangibles are, for the most part, minimal at best, in the sport of baseball. Thats if they truly even exist at all.

[dickay]

Obviously there are alot of people who believe it to be true, or there wouldn't be so many complaining about the catch phrases "he knows how to win" or "clutch" and the like. HGM, you argue that I cna't prove it...well, so many believe it...you prove it! Prove that it isn't true.

Fact is you can't prove one way or the other. You are entitled to your opinion, that is all. As I said, you are entitled to opinions, even if they are wrong. As for the catch phrases...having played organized sports I will say that while overused, I do believe there are instances where they are true. Thats all.

[wahoosamC]

Obviously there are alot of people who believe it to be true, or there wouldn't be so many complaining about the catch phrases "he knows how to win" or "clutch" and the like. HGM, you argue that I cna't prove it...well, so many believe it...you prove it! Prove that it isn't true.

Fact is you can't prove one way or the other. You are entitled to your opinion, that is all. As I said, you are entitled to opinions, even if they are wrong. As for the catch phrases...having played organized sports I will say that while overused, I do believe there are instances where they are true. Thats all.

That's dumb, there is no logical reason to think it should be proven not to be true before it is regarded as inaccurate. Common sense let's us know that it must be proven before it's accepted, not disproven before it's rejected.

Well it's about as close to being disproven as it can be, whereas there basically is nothing to suggest it is true. Mostly all numbers and statistics point to it not being true.

[HoustonGM]

Obviously there are alot of people who believe it to be true, or there wouldn't be so many complaining about the catch phrases "he knows how to win" or "clutch" and the like. HGM, you argue that I cna't prove it...well, so many believe it...you prove it! Prove that it isn't true.

You can't prove a negative.

Well it's about as close to being disproven as it can be, whereas there basically is nothing to suggest it is true. Mostly all numbers and statistics point to it not being true.

Exactly.

People latch on to these "bullsh!t dump" phrases precisely because they really CAN'T be proven one way or the other because they AREN'T detectable. Everything we do know, though, points to them not being there in any meaningful way.

This paragraph from Swampdog seems to describe you accurately, dickay:

Those that place a lot of stock in things like "leadership", "inspires confidence in teammates", "character", etc., are just as bad, if not worse. They seem to think that, because they are so much smarter than anyone else, they can see these things, when no one else does. They can tell who is a "winner", when none of the rest of us can. They can detect who is making their teammates better, even though it is invisible to everyone else. To me, these individuals place far too much emphasis on these "intangibles", and far too little emphasis on factual evidence.

When your views are challenged, rather than providing even a single tidbit of evidence, you immediately jump into, "You prove it isn't there!" or "If you don't think it's there, you've never played/watched/seen/etc. sports!" or whatever else the ad hominem of the day is.

If this effect you claim exists did, in fact, exist, and you could detect it, as you claim to be able to, you'd be able to support it with SOMETHING, ANYTHING. That you can't do so speaks for itself.

[dickay]

When your views are challenged, rather than providing even a single tidbit of evidence, you immediately jump into, "You prove it isn't there!" or "If you don't think it's there, you've never played/watched/seen/etc. sports!" or whatever else the ad hominem of the day is.

If this effect you claim exists did, in fact, exist, and you could detect it, as you claim to be able to, you'd be able to support it with SOMETHING, ANYTHING. That you can't do so speaks for itself.

wow, this really seems to be a sore spot with you. are you that childish where you can't accept the fact that I disagree with your opinion? I've been pretty civil in this thread and said now more than once that I disagree with you. Why do you always feel the need to get sarcastic? You're the one that first said to "prove it", and I did cite examples of people I believe may fit the definition. Whether or not each do individual (shef for example), I don't know for sure....I don't proclaim to be an 'insider'. All i've stated is that in my opinion I do believe in things like "clutch, leadership, and that there are those that are just plain winners". I state that based upon my experiences in life as well as in organized sports. You're the one that can't provide anything tangible, except for theories as to why you believe so many claim these things to be true.

If you want to disagree...fine. I really don't give a rats a$$. But for once I'd appreciate if you respected anothers opinion on a matter. Again, as a moderator of these forum, you have a very childish demeanor.

[HoustonGM]

All I've asked was for you to provide something in support of your opinion. You're claiming this phenomenon exists, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Yes, I understand, we disagree. I don't see why that needs repeating. I'm open to seeing evidence of this thing existing, which is why I've asked you to provide some. I don't see how I've disrespected your opinion or acted childish.

This is a discussion about leadership/improving teammates/knowing how to win/whatever. You think it exists. I don't think it exists in any meaningful manner. I've asked you to provide evidence, mostly because I'm really interested in hearing it because this seems to be a widely held viewpoint, yet one of which I've seen not one inkling of evidence. It's that simple and, once again, you're shifting the discussion away from that very simple request. Why?

[dickay]

All I've asked was for you to provide something in support of your opinion.

And I've told you that it really can't be substantiated, I said that from the onset. I did provide examples of some I believe may possess this quality, and explained how I think it crosses over from baseball to the real world. There are some that are born winners IMO, largely because of their work ethic, leadership abilities and drive for success.

therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Why? All I've said was that I agree with many of the statements many others make on almost a daily basis in sports. It is you who disagrees with them. I've provided examples of whom I believe 'may' fit this bill and you even disputed one of them. That is fine. Why do you feel it needs to go beyond that? If you feel that way, then the burden is on you.

Yes, I understand, we disagree. I don't see why that needs repeating.

I do. Because while i've said we disagree, you continue to pry looking for answers. If you understand that we disagree...why isn't that enough? It seems to me that you don't understand?

I don't see how I've disrespected your opinion or acted childish.

The child never does lol. How bout this for starters?

This paragraph from Swampdog seems to describe you accurately, dickay:

or this;

When your views are challenged, rather than providing even a single tidbit of evidence, you immediately jump into, "You prove it isn't there!" or "If you don't think it's there, you've never played/watched/seen/etc. sports!" or whatever else the ad hominem of the day is.

Nice way to try and package all posts i've ever made, into completely untrue and unfair attacks. The issues you have in these threads with many, is that you have trouble seeing when you are being arrogant and condescending far far beyond debate.

This is a discussion about leadership/improving teammates/knowing how to win/whatever. You think it exists. I don't think it exists in any meaningful manner. I've asked you to provide evidence, mostly because I'm really interested in hearing it because this seems to be a widely held viewpoint, yet one of which I've seen not one inkling of evidence.

Thank you for admitting its 'widely held'. I could swear i've seen others trying to make it out to be an opinion of the few rather than the many. Again, if you wish to disprove it....you have to bear some of the burden of that yourself.

It's that simple and, once again, you're shifting the discussion away from that very simple request. Why?

Because you became childish in your debate. Thats the most civil way I could put it. I've already said I can't substantiate my opinion, and that I believe we disagree. What more do you want?

[RedsoxRockies]

As always, I am on Dickay's side in this. You always attack him over and over, and then complain when he responds

[dickay]

As always, I am on Dickay's side in this. You always attack him over and over, and then complain when he responds

i have never commented on your replys redsox....and in at least one case I really didn't think HGM was 'attacking' but in others they most certainly were. As is in this thread....I thank you for your honest assessment, thats all.

I really don't know why he feels the need to do this, but for some reason he just can't accept the fact that some people don't agree with his opinion. I've never met such a closed mind in my life that I could think of....and even when he's proven to be wrong and knows it (this thread is most certainly not one of those situations), he feels the need to stick behind his initial opinion rather than admit he was incorrect. For someone as intelligent as him (he's obviously intelligent in terms of baseball at least), this is a glaring personality flaw which one day he will open to and recognize.

[dickay]

I should also mention about "improving teammates" because thats one I haven't really chimed in on much. HGM did mention it in his last post here, so I'll add my thoughts.

I don't see why this is so hard to understand and agree with. I have heard quite a few in this forum claim that they don't think the Celtics will win this year because 'they no longer have that drive to do so'. If it is believed that a team can lose motivation why is it hard to believe a team can get extra motivation? The phrase, "win one for the gipper" is very old. We constantly hear players saying about coaches, QB's, and others, "he's a guy you want to play hard for". You constantly here "we won it for XXXXX". There are those IMO that possess leadership qualities to motivate increased effort.

Also...improving teamates is constantly talked about in baseball. In boston, the question remains how Ortiz will do without Manny as protection. Obviously the pitches he sees will be different. Players have said at times they're more focused on defense when a great game is being pitched as they don't want to be the ones to ruin it.

There are many instances in sports in which a player 'improves teammates' performance. Sadly, there are no stats for the mental aspect of the game.

[HoustonGM]

Why? All I've said was that I agree with many of the statements many others make on almost a daily basis in sports. It is you who disagrees with them. I've provided examples of whom I believe 'may' fit this bill and you even disputed one of them. That is fine. Why do you feel it needs to go beyond that? If you feel that way, then the burden is on you.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the people claiming the existence of something. You can't prove a negative. It is up to the people that say something exists to prove it exists, not for others to prove they're wrong. That's a rather basic concept.

I do. Because while i've said we disagree, you continue to pry looking for answers. If you understand that we disagree...why isn't that enough? It seems to me that you don't understand?

Because i thought we were having a discussion. If all we were doing was stating whether or not we agree and leaving it at that, well...what the heck would be the point of that? Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't have a discussion. I'm seeking answers. I'd like to know why people believe in this phenomenon, and if it does indeed exist, I'd like to see evidence of it, because I don't like disbelieving something that exists. You claim that the thing exists, so, you know, logically, I figure you have some evidence in support of it.

The child never does lol.

You're the only one making ad hominem attacks here.

]How bout this for starters?

This paragraph from Swampdog seems to describe you accurately, dickay:

Those that place a lot of stock in things like "leadership", "inspires confidence in teammates", "character", etc., are just as bad, if not worse. They seem to think that, because they are so much smarter than anyone else, they can see these things, when no one else does. They can tell who is a "winner", when none of the rest of us can. They can detect who is making their teammates better, even though it is invisible to everyone else. To me, these individuals place far too much emphasis on these "intangibles", and far too little emphasis on factual evidence.

That's not acting childish. It's just describing you in this thread. Obviously, you place a lot of stock in those things. You also claim to be able to see these things. You claim to be able to tell who is a "winner." You claim to be able to detect who makes their teammates better. Is this an inaccurate representation of your stance?

or this;

When your views are challenged, rather than providing even a single tidbit of evidence, you immediately jump into, "You prove it isn't there!" or "If you don't think it's there, you've never played/watched/seen/etc. sports!" or whatever else the ad hominem of the day is.or this;

Again, this is not an attack or acting childish. I've challenged your views by disagreeing. Instead of providing evidence, you've challenged me to prove it doesn't exist (an impossible task), made statements to the effect of "Those have played organized sports know it's there", and shifted the discussion away from the issue at hand and into the realm of the personal.

Nice way to try and package all posts i've ever made, into completely untrue and unfair attacks. The issues you have in these threads with many, is that you have trouble seeing when you are being arrogant and condescending far far beyond debate.

Please tell me how I'm "attacking" you and how that is not an accurate representation of your stance. You HAVE claimed that these players exist, correct? You HAVE claimed that you can tell who some of them are, correct? You HAVE indicated that you place emphasis on that quality, correct? You HAVE NOT provided any evidence in support of it, corrrect? If any of this is incorrect, please, tell me, because it is not my intention to misrepresent your argument.

Thank you for admitting its 'widely held'. I could swear i've seen others trying to make it out to be an opinion of the few rather than the many.

Well, you'd be wrong. We likely wouldn't be discussing it if it wasn't something few people thought.

Again, if you wish to disprove it....you have to bear some of the burden of that yourself.

I don't "wish to disprove it". I don't believe it exists because I have not seen any evidence that it does. As I said above, the burden of proof is on the people making the claim. That is why in a court of law, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant committed the act. The side that is saying something is the case is the side that bears the burden of proof.

Because you became childish in your debate. Thats the most civil way I could put it. I've already said I can't substantiate my opinion, and that I believe we disagree.

I have not become "childish". You were the first to make any personal attacks (ie. calling me childish). You were the first to divert the discussion away from the issue and towards a personal issue. I've simply stated what it seems to me is your view. Apparently, that's an attack on you. As I said, once more, if I'm misrepresenting your view, please point out exactly how so I can correct it because I do not wish to do so.

What more do you want?

I would've liked a discussion about the issue, but, I guess I forgot, discussions can't take place when the entirety of the argument on one side is nothing but gut feelings.

As always, I am on Dickay's side in this. You always attack him over and over, and then complain when he responds

I have not attacked him AT ALL, let alone "over and over", and I certainly have not "complained when he responds." These comments of yours contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion and serve only to instigate further problems.

I really don't know why he feels the need to do this, but for some reason he just can't accept the fact that some people don't agree with his opinion.

I can absolutely accept that fact. I'm sorry that you equate "wanting to have a discussion with those of a different opinion so that he can learn" with "not being able to accept the fact that some people have a different opinion." That's not my problem, though.

I've never met such a closed mind in my life that I could think of

Excuse me? How is asking for evidence in support of an opposing viewpoint a "CLOSED MIND"? A closed mind would not ask for evidence. A closed mind would say "You're wrong and I don't wish to hear any more from you." The fact that I wish to participate in a discussion with you and listen to your side shows that I am not close-minded. Not only am I willing to listen to your side, I've practically begged you to give me something.

and even when he's proven to be wrong and knows it (this thread is most certainly not one of those situations), he feels the need to stick behind his initial opinion rather than admit he was incorrect. For someone as intelligent as him (he's obviously intelligent in terms of baseball at least), this is a glaring personality flaw which one day he will open to and recognize.

Please PM to me whatever examples you have of me having been proven wrong, knowing it, and refusing to admit that I'm incorrect. Don't post them here because that's unnecessary, but seriously, I'm really interested. I bet you I can find more examples of me admitting I'm incorrect and/or changing my opinion than you can of the opposite.

[HoustonGM]

I don't see why this is so hard to understand and agree with. I have heard quite a few in this forum claim that they don't think the Celtics will win this year because 'they no longer have that drive to do so'. If it is believed that a team can lose motivation why is it hard to believe a team can get extra motivation? The phrase, "win one for the gipper" is very old. We constantly hear players saying about coaches, QB's, and others, "he's a guy you want to play hard for". You constantly here "we won it for XXXXX". There are those IMO that possess leadership qualities to motivate increased effort.

See? This is all I'm asking for. Some level of discussion.

I believe a team can lose motivation, and gain motivation. I've yet to see any evidence, however, that it translates into actually doing better or worse.

Also...improving teamates is constantly talked about in baseball. In boston, the question remains how Ortiz will do without Manny as protection. Obviously the pitches he sees will be different.

David Ortiz without Manny as protection: .262/.381/.519, or slightly better than he did this year with Manny.

Sure, it's talked about...needlessly, since every study I've ever seen indicates that "protection" affects nothing except slight differences in walk rate.

There are many instances in sports in which a player 'improves teammates' performance. Sadly, there are no stats for the mental aspect of the game.

If there's an instance of a player "improving a teammate's performance", the stats would show it, considering the stats are a record of performance. See, here you claim there are many instances of it. All I'm asking is for you to show me those instances. Show me the evidence that a player improved his teammates. If there's many instances, that should be easy.

[dickay]

It is so not worth my time and effort to indulge in your previous post. I'll just end it where it is.

As for this;

David Ortiz without Manny as protection: .262/.381/.519, or slightly better than he did this year with Manny.

Sure, it's talked about...needlessly, since every study I've ever seen indicates that "protection" affects nothing except slight differences in walk rate.

So you use Ortiz's 'small sample size' from early this year while he was battling the effects of a wrist injury to support your claim that Ortiz is very similar with or without manny as protection?

If there's an instance of a player "improving a teammate's performance", the stats would show it, considering the stats are a record of performance. See, here you claim there are many instances of it. All I'm asking is for you to show me those instances. Show me the evidence that a player improved his teammates. If there's many instances, that should be easy.

I'm not putting alot of effort into researching something I feel is obvious. I really just don't care that much in persuading you of it. Off the top of my head i'll point to the Roger Maris / Mantle debate which has gone on for years. You can decipher the stats but there has been many that claimed Maris's numbers were greatly influenced by hitting in front of Mantle. I know you've heard players state that they concerntrate harder in the field when a great game is being pitched as they don't want to make an error. While impossible to quantify.....i'm not one to call the players liars. The situation and performance of the pitcher improved the concentration of the players who mentioned this.

Pippen / Jordan, Bird / Ainge, the other poster in here made alot of sense. In hoops, it is very prevalent as a great player will garner double teams allowing another to have better looks at the basket.

Same goes in football. The #2 reciever very often benefits when a truly great #1 is alongside. Again, off the top of my head but James Lofton, Eric Moulds are two that come to mind. May or may not be entirely accurate but i'm sure good examples exist.

Finally, the example i've already given of players who said, "we won it for XXXX". With many players admitting they were motivated to put forth extra effort because of a certain player, coach, etc......i'd prefer to believe them and IMO that more than shows to my satisfaction a player who improves a teammates performance. It can't be quantified....all i can do is point to personal experiences in organized sports. I can honestly tell you that there were situations in which I was impacted by events which caused extra motivation and effort. I doubt i'm alone in that, and I doubt it ends at the collegiate levels. Why me pointing to personal experiences bothers you...I don't know. It is what helps mold my opinion, and if thats an issue for you...well, tough.