Hustle Is a Skill: Some Ancient Notes on Baseball
One of the finely bound tomes to which I appeal more often than the many other finely bound tomes in my impressive collection is Epictetus’s Discourses. Epictetus, a Stoic who thrived in the early second century AD, unsurprisingly trumpeted those virtues prized by Stoic philosophy — in particular, the ability to make decisions which would free one from the shackles of painful emotion. The particular joy — or at least one of the joys — of reading Epictetus is his voice, which is kinda a cross between Oscar Wilde and Gunnery Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal Jacket, if you can imagine that.
In a passage I’ve just recently read, and which I’ll share with you post-haste, I think Epictetus has something to offer those of us who concern ourselves with player valuation — especially when it comes to assessing some aspects of a player’s “true talent.”
I’ll establish the connection more substantially on the other side of the quote.
First, wisdom:
People are ready to acknowledge some of their faults, but will admit to others only with reluctance… Shyness, they will concede, saying, “I’m a bit timid, I know; but I’m nobody’s fool for all that.” Hardly anyone admits to a lack of self-control, no one at all will admit to being unjust, few will say that they are nosy or envious, but most will allow that they are liable to feel pity.
[...]
In general, where people are led to acknowledge a fault it is because they imagine there is something involuntary about it. So it is with shyness and pity. Even if they confess to a lack of self-control, love is usually blamed, to gain sympathy for something supposedly beyond out control. Injustice, on the other hand, they don’t consider involuntary in any sense. But jealousy, in their view, has an instinctive air about it, so they will own up to that, too (II.21).
A moment that caused something of a ruckus within the baseballing community this past season occurred in mid-May when, after misplaying a ball and literally kicking it into left field, Marlin shortstop Hanley Ramirez jogged leisurely after the rolling ball, thus playing what should have been a single into a three-base hit. (See video here.)
It’s the sort of moment that allows sportswriters to wax indignant, something which occurred en masse after the incident. The prevailing notion was that Ramirez should’ve run harder after the ball. Nor is it my intention to argue anything differently. Even for we readers of FanGraphs — i.e. the sort of fans who’ve never watched a game and communicate with the world only by means of an interminable series of 0s and 1s — even for us, the play was mostly a bummer to watch. Certainly, it represents one of the rare instances in which the home viewer can honestly say, “I would’ve done a better job there than that super-talented professional athlete.”
The flaw in that assessment, however, is the presumption that all Ramirez had to do — all any loafing athlete would have to do — is just “try harder.”* It’s a case, I’ll submit, where we spectators aren’t correctly distinguishing — as Epictetus advises — between voluntary and involuntary traits.
*Note: I recognize, as was mentioned at the time, that Ramirez might have been feeling the effects of injury. This isn’t intended to be an attack on Ramirez per se — or any one player, in general.
The capacity or desire to compete (conspicuously) at max effort is almost definitely closer to an involuntary trait than we generally acknowledge. By “involuntary,” in this case, I don’t mean to suggest that it’s hereditary — although that’s possible, I guess — but just that it’s more closely tied to a player’s identity than we might otherwise think.
Frequently, you’ll hear a fan say of an athlete — as I recently heard a co-worker say of Randy Moss — “If he just tried harder, imagine how good he’d be.” Perhaps that’s true, but consider how less often we hear people say of David Eckstein, “If he were just bigger and stronger and faster and better, imagine how good he’d be.” Because we view all those things as involuntary, it never occurs to us that Eckstein is expressly lacking those traits. Furthermore, it’s possible that Randy Moss is great because of his approach to the game. Likewise, Hanley Ramirez: perhaps the same impulse that led him to jog after the ball in left field — whatever quality that is — is also something that’s aided his excellence in some other way.
You might see how quickly this could become a racial issue for some — and it’s a concern raised both by Rob Iracane of Walkoff Walk and Junior of Fire Joe Morgan, whose respective thoughts on the matter I endorse.
Mostly, the virtues we speak of in sport — of hard work and self-discipline and sacrifice — are the exact same virtues which define the Protestant Work Ethic, an ethic that Max Weber has argued convincingly as being a defining one in the formation of Northern European and United States-ian societies.
For players from Latin America (or Southern Europe, if they actually did come from there), where the Protestant Work Ethic has had less influence, it’s likely difficult to understand — initially, at least — the fascination that sporting commentators and fans in this country have with grit and hustle and sacrifice. Much the same could be said for American players who grow up in marginalized communities. Had these same players grown up in a Midwestern hamlet, though — or, say, punted for frigging Nebraska — they might appear as second nature.
But to reduce this to a question of political identity in any of its forms would be to miss the forest for the trees. The point is that any number of things could influence the formation of this trait. That’s not really our concern. Our concern is, when looking at a player, accepting the entire package and not, as my co-worker does, regarding some qualities as “decisions” on the part of the player.
The benefit to this way of thinking is that it allows us to adjust, however slightly, the way we evaluate a player. If we say that, just as there are people with excellent hand-eye coordination or outstanding vertical leaps, that there are also people who, for whatever reason, possess a greater capacity for hustle — then perhaps we can use that to our advantage. Of course, “measuring” hustle might not be particularly easy, (even if the good men of Royals Review have tried), but to that problem I say: this is why I’m the 17th-best writer at FanGraphs.
Finally, some other questions. Is this something that we could ultimately measure in runs per season, or something akin to that? Is capacity for hustle something that, like plate discipline, could improve with age and maturity? Are there other traits that we might begin to understand less as choices by, and more as facts about, about a player?
Answers to all these questions and more exist, I can assure you, somewhere in the shadowy future.
I really enjoyed this. It’s really “outside the box” and it’s certainly something worth pondering.
As a Cards’ fan, I notice that there are many other Cards’ fans who routinely dog Albert Pujols b/c he doesn’t run hard to first on every ground ball he hits. The reason he doesn’t is that he’s mindful of the possibility of pulling a hamstring and, in years past, it’s been b/c he was dealing with a lot of pain as the result of his having plantar fascitis. Still, with all Albert does, do we really care if he’s out at first by 1 step or 4 steps.
It sort of came to a head during 1 game this past season when there was a bad throw to first or the first baseman bobbled the ball and, if he had been running 100% the entire way, he might have been safe.
And, of course, La Russa has some sort of mystical infatuation with people like Eckstein, Ryan Theriot, Skip Schumaker, Aaron Miles, etc. Guys who aren’t that good but always “give 100%!” And he doesn’t seem to care for those who “appear” not to — Rasmus, J.D. Drew, for example.
You mention LaRussa and Rasmus and J.D. Drew, who don’t come from marginalized or latin american countries, which I think kind of makes the idea that this is some kind of political or protestant work ethic bias kind of funny. I have heard lots of players mentioned as lazy who I don’t think to myself, well, he comes from a marginalized community or some other code speak. Ben Grieve got the label, Kevin McReynolds, Drew. Piazza was knocked for not hustling out flyballs. And there are latin americans and blacks who are known as hustle guys, who made it despite not having the uber-talent of a Drew, or Barry Bonds. Alex Cora, gritty future manager, etc.
I understand the desire to maybe divorce the concept of “hustle” from making a judgment call on someone’s voluntary behavior, or their “nature.” But I think to a degree that’s a fool’s errand. Very few people are not going to realize that Hanley Ramirez MAY have had it very different growing up than J.D. Drew. Then again, Barry Bonds (who i don’t recall referred to as lazy) likely had it a bit easier growing up then, say, Dizzy Dean did. Regardless, we know people are influenced by their backgrounds, personalities etc. Dave Eckstein hustles. hanley ramirez sometimes doesn’t. Hanley is a better player than Eckstein. None of these are controversial statements. Guys that have the same physical talent (as opposed to some type of “mental” talent”) as Eckstein that don’t hustle are weeded out fairly early. And i think Eckstein wouldn’t be so well-rememebered if he hadn’t put up a near 4 WAR season for a championship team, and was above-replacement value for another.
The flip side argument is that in the case of the booted ball, Hanley was accepting reality. No matter how hard he ran, two runs were going to come in and the batter would more likely than not have landed on third base regardless of his hustle.
If you focus on controlling the things you can control and let the things you can’t slide off your back it makes you a much more centered person and in the case of a baseball player, it would be the impetus to survival in MLB. There’s certainly such a thing as ‘trying too hard’, especially when at the plate.
Frankly, it upsets fans when players quit, and I get that, but at some point you just have to accept reality and move on. If your team is twenty games out of a playoff spot at the All Star break, start playing for next season already.
“. Had these same players grown up in a Midwestern hamlet, though — or, say, punted for frigging Nebraska — they would appear as second nature.
”
Interesting article, although, as someone who lived in the Midwest for the last couple of years, I couldn’t disagree with this more. There’s plenty of lazy in the midwest.
I think a large part of “Lazy athlete syndrome” is being an elite performer at a young age. You don’t need to work hard to be the best, and coaches/agents coddle you.
I doubt Hanley, as a 12 year old playng SS had to pay much attention to the game or try all that hard to be the best player on the field. Plus, there’s a direct dicincentive for a lot of these kids: if you play all out, kids stop wanting to play with you. Nobody likes playing pickup games with the kid who you can’t ever stop from dunking on you. Nobody likes the kid who you can never get out.
It could also something as simple as cultural differences. White people are often raised to supress emotions and just “get the job done”. Latin culture is quite the opposite. Expressing emotions is the norm. Our culture (dominated by white people) views this as childish, loud, annoying, showing off, etc. Others view white culture as bland and boring.
Whether they’re right or wrong depends on which culture is being used as the standard. I forget the term for this action, but that’s why people use their own culture as the standard for evaluating other people … They can never be wrong.
@chuckb,
I agree. I tell AP5 not to run. “Whoa, slow down big fella (even when he is jogging).
A lot of people buy into “fake hustle”. There’s people that get through each day with fake hustle. For some people fake hustle is a substitute for talent.
Others are just looking for a reason to complain. In decades past it would have been acceptable to call AP5 racial slurs or make fun of his waist (as if he’s really fat). So maybe it’s progress that he is only dogged about jogging out grounders … Y’know just like how the average guys works really hard, every day.
TLR likes those guys because he was one of those guys as a player. He doesn’t like guys with talent who don’t work as hard as he thinks they should, or act as he would.
The only thing a player can do that TLR doesn’t notice, evidently is steroids.
I’ll offer a secondary observation — fans are often repulsed by public displays of “laziness” or lack of effort not because of what results in that one instance (a runner on third instead of first), but because of what it implies about that player himself. Fans view players not as workers being paid for providing a valuable (or, perhaps, valued) service, but as winners of the genetic lottery — men, just like them in every way, except that they’ve been blessed with a gift that they didn’t earn (or deserve)?
So the fan sees the lack of effort, and thinks, “We’re paying this guy how many millions of dollars to play a game, and he can’t even hustle?” When the player starts slowly to begin the year, the fan thinks, “He makes 2000 times what I make, and he can’t be bothered to train in the offseason?” When the player gets injured, the fan thinks, “I doubt it’s even a real injury — he’s milking it so he can sit and get paid.”
In each case, the conclusion has less to do with the reality of the situation (which is whether the player is worth his salary, or did in fact train hard in the offseason, or is actually suffering a serious injury) and more to do with his internal dialogue and his imagined response if he himself were suddenly bestowed with the skills and opportunity to play major league baseball.
The flipside of this is that players like Eckstein (who, despite being arguably one of the top 1000 baseball players on the planet right now, looks like a normal guy) garners praise because we see in him what could have been for ourselves — if the right scout had seen my best game — if I hadn’t torn my ACL in my senior season — if things had just played out a little differently, that could be me.
I do wonder, though, where to draw the line. It’s one thing to say that Hanley’s lack of (apparent) effort on that play shouldn’t be an indictment of his character. But let’s change the example to Miggy Cabrera — I’ll advance the argument that his weight gain is a non-issue because whatever his attitude toward training and diet might be, it’s gotten him this far (and that’s saying something, for a Top 5 hitter in the world). So Miggy might lack the trait of self-control or discipline in training — so what? David Eckstein can’t make a strong throw to first, and Miggy can’t push away that last slice of pizza. What’s the difference?
Anyone buying that line of reasoning?
Concerning the racial issue: In Men At Work, George Will mentioned that black players are often seen as lesser players because they tend to have better tools and are therefore deemed to be lower when compared to “smart” and “hardworking” white ballplayers. George Will denied that that notion when talking about Tony Gwynn. But I think it’s a stereotype that exists today, and it has been stretched to include Latin American players. Your article makes me wonder about those players. Are they just not as bright as other players, or is that a figment of of public perception? If the former is true, is this a product of their raw tools that have carried them? Or have they made the mental decision to focus on the things that they perceive to be their best traits? Could those players actually improve by playing “smart” ball?
This also made me think about an article that Pat Andriola wrote in June about Ryan Howard. He noted that Howard’s contact was increasing and his strikeout rate was decreasing, while his walk and slugging rates were decreasing. Andriola suggested that Howard might be trying to “reinvent” himself – and that such a change would be detrimental to his value. So, was Ryan Howard changing his style of play? If so, was it a voluntary choice?
Your article raises a lot of good questions.
Great stuff. I’ve had a different version of this conversation related to plate approach (specifically with Adam Dunn). A guy who is particularly disciplined will drive some fans crazy with “why won’t he just swing more” lust.
But I think when we look closer, most people are much more rational in their behaviors than we think. That is, most people are min-maxing their skill set. The trick is recognizing that we may be ignoring certain interactions (if Moss ran 100% on a decoy route, would he still have that extra step when his number is called?)
I think the safer default position is not to assume a player is willfully choosing to be less productive, but rather to try and figure out why he’s chosen the particular approach.
One difference between the physical and behavioral though — if in a given game (even if his proclivity is otherwise), if Hanley wanted to hustle more, he could. That is to say, the behavior is a mean level of a distribution about which the player can willfully move. It may be very difficult, or impossible, for him to move his mean behavior, but he is capable of doing any part of the spectrum. By contrast, Eckstein can never choose to be taller or stronger. He can’t tell himself, this play is really important, I’ll change my body type for this game.
“By contrast, Eckstein can never choose to be taller or stronger.”
Actually, we know that’s not really true, is it?
Mark, I think you are 100% correct. People see him not hustling and pouting and jump right to the player’s salary. 15M/y and he can’t hustle?!?!?
Because if we were pros, we’d play every game as it were game 7, sign every autograph as if it were our last day to live, etc.
But when it’s pointed out that if you have 20 bucks in your pocket that you are among the top 10% of the world in terms of wealth, it doesn’t make them any more thankful, chaitable, etc.
When it comes to people talking about what other people should do or what they’d do if they were in that situation, people are flat-out full of shit. That goes for what people would do if they were a soldier, millionaire, famous, athlete, poor, etc.
I’ve said this all along growing up. If I just tried harder, I could get straight As, but that’s not the kind of student I am. Some are smart, some are dumb. Some try hard, some don’t. It’s like a Punnett square.
(And by the way, quote is a verb; quotation is the noun.)
You get pretty close to saying this, but I find it interesting how ready we are to think that a player’s skill is a function of “talent” rather than something that is under a person’s control. We tend to talk about people who are good at math and logic, or good at baseball, as though the big difference between them and people unlike them is a matter of being “a math person” or “athletic.”
Now, I have no doubt that if I had invested thousands of hours in playing baseball from the age of 5, I would not be as good at it as Hanley Ramirez, and it’s natural to think that the difference is talent or genetics, or similar things beyond our control. But I think we often radically underestimate how much people who are good at baseball (or math) are good at it because they have spent many hours and years playing baseball (taking math classes, solving equations, etc.) In short, I suspect that what we call talent is the ability to learn something, not the ability to do something, and that the ability to do anything requires learning.
philosofool = Malcolm Gladwell????
You found me out.
Early in his pro career, Terry Bradshaw had some well-publicized incidents that got him labeled as a typical dumb jock with a ton of “natural” talent. In truth, Bradshaw was highly intelligent, he simply froze a few times as a rookie under game pressure. As for “natural talent”, his dad made sure he and his two brothers threw 1,000 passes each day after school. Craig Bradshaw also made the NFL briefly. I don’t think anyone reaches pro level without a lot of work.
Brandon Phillips sat down on a play similar to Hanley’s. I’m sure Brandon is a better defensive player than Derek Jeter, but I’ll always remember Jeter for that hustling play backing up home plate (which was something like his fifth defensive position on the play.) Hustle is something that inspires other players, lack of hustle is contagious.
Really, 1000? I know what hyperbole is, but come on.
Reading this I’m reminded of the anecdote related by Mickey Mantle in Ken Burn’s “Baseball” about the origin of the “Charlie Hustle” moniker.
Mantle claims he christened Rose “Charlie Hustle” after Rose attempted to climb the fence chasing after a homer that was 20 feet over the wall. Apocryphal or not, I like the story. Such a futile effort can easily be viewed as self-indulgence and given what we’ve seen of Rose over the last 20 years a less generous view of his efforts might sense.
@Schu
While I see your point, I disagree with your assertion that Ramirez was “accepting reality.” Had he run for the ball rather than jogging the runner not only would most likely not have made it to third, he probably wouldn’t have attempted third. Even as it was, the runner barely beat the throw, though it was off line a bit.
If the players are a product of their environment and we should not judge them for thy reason then the fans are also products of their environment and we should expect THEM to behave differently either. After all, if Hanley can’t be expected to hustle because that’s not conscious then the fans who boo him can’t be expected to act otherwise because they too are acting on something closer to the subconscious.
I would say you’re the 13th-best writer here.
As is, you’re my favorite.
I think he’s the best writer on fangraphs. Thirteenth best baseball analyst maybe…
Carson, you’re definitely at least the top 10 in FanGraphs writers. Don’t undersell your writing. Seriously though, this was high-quality. Like 720p high-quality.
What is the equivalent of 720p in thread count, Albert?
That’s my primary frame of reference for adjudging quality.
Gosh I hope not. Thread count is dependent on the hustle of the readership.
Which is dependent on how hard they work generally and the value system they were raised in. Regardless of the public critique(and it’s inherent training) offered by other posters.
I’m talking bed sheets, player.
Bed. Sheets.
Ben. Sheets?
Epicurus or Epictetus? Two different philosophers of opposite thoughts.
Ack. Thanks. Corrected.
I’ve found your xmas gift:
http://www.cafepress.com/+epictetus+thermos
I wonder if a starting place for measuring “effort” can be found in comparing speed in different contexts. For example, most players seem to run hardest when in situations such as stealing a base. And many of the times when fans notice this lack of “effort,” is in the field. If you could sample multiple years, possibly separately by each position, to find the average ratio of fielding range divided by speed on the basepaths, you might find an interesting correlation for the players labeled as “lazy.” If it worked, the “lazy” players would have a lower rate of range divided by speed than those that “tried” harder.
obviously, there are many holes in this, and the equation would probably need more variables. The idea only came to me just now. It would be hard to account for misjudged balls in the field, etc. So please don’t complain too much about this idea if you think it’s useless. It’s just a thought.
Barry Bonds was seen as lazy because he did what Pujols does and didn’t run out ground balls to first.
@Circlechange, the phrase you’re looking for is ethnocentrism, if my high school English teacher was correct.
@Carson, I think 720p would probably equal 800 thread count.
I have two kids. One is naturally a hard worker, and one is naturally lazy.
Do I back off the lazy one, and rationalize that he was born that way, so it’s ok?
Of course not. I ride his butt even harder to overcome his natural deficiencies so he can realize his full potential.
Unless your argument is that innate laziness is impossible to overcome, and/or laziness is a positive personality characteristic?
So glad you said that. If the msm is overly fond of hustle, the sabersphere is all too eager to excuse it.
Interesting theory that apparent laziness could be beneficial.
One player that I’ve seen this in is Anthony Rendon. At times, he appears a bit too relaxed, but he always seems to make the plays. His loose approach to the game may be why he’s so comfortable in almost any situation. He’s also stated that his favorite player is Manny Ramirez… who seems to embody this kind of approach to the game.
In his early years, Manny was reputed to be a very hard worker.
The main concern with early Manny was that he could be too self-critical and took things too seriously at times, and lacked confidence (really). Kinda sounds like Manny, early on, was TCQ.
IMO, Manny is more of a case of overly-emotional and absent-minded as opposed to being lazy. I’m interpreting lazy to mean unwilling to work or put forth the effort. IMO, anytime Manny was being “lazy” he was really letting his emotions get in the way of the task. Not running out plays in Boston, etc. It doesn;t seem to so much avoiding effort, but feeling unappreciated, unmotivated, etc. 2 different things.
Manny gives off the impression of being dumb. However, when batting mechanics experts analyzed game swings, Manny led all batters in the highest percentage of swings being “perfect”. That takes work, lots and lots of work. He was also able to start his swing later than other batters, allowing the ball to travel deeper in the zone (so to speak) … that is the result of talent (primarily). Not too many guys can pull that off, even with a ton of work.
Ted Williams on the other hand is a scientific hitting genius, as if he hard-worked himself into being the self-described “best hitter that ever lived”. IMO, if you sat TSW and Manny down together, they would both describe very similar things, perhaps in different words and expressions, but the same content and phases of the swing.
Don’t overthink it. Eventually he was lazy. At times.
I interpret lazy to mean not willing to work. I have difficulty envisioning Manny refusing to practice, choosing not to work on his swing, etc.
Most of the Manny stuff was “faking” an injury, not running out plays, crazy fielding plays, and the perception at least was that he was sticking it to the bosses, or trying to be traded, or just displaying his displeasure.
But, I do agree that lots of things can look like “lazy”, and knowing which is which is often difficult.
Sure, he’d work on his swing. He’d sometimes choose to swing badly. But I am thinking more of his fielding. I don’t think he worked hard at it and sometimes I think the lack of effort was not showing displeasure but simply not fancying the bother of trying. I don’t know what else to call that. If it isn’t lazy it is something close to it. I don’t necessarily think lazy is in all circumstances pejorative. Leaning against a tree by a brook with a stick with a string, hook and bobber tied to it tossed in the water, Rossini’s “Call to the Cows” from Wiliam Tell Orchestra or Grieg’s “Morning” playing on the soundtrack:
http://www.kickassclassical.com/rossini_williamtell01.mp3
http://www.kickassclassical.com/grieg_morning.mp3
It seems to me that “laziness” may have more to do with letting emotions prevail over logical thinking. I have coached both robots and emotional pitchers. When the emotional pitchers give upa hit and don’t run to back up 3rd or home, it’s not because they’re lazy. It’s because they allow the emotion of disappointment to over-ride their thinking of their next task.
We preach on this b/c if you are not among the mega-talented, it’s enough for a college coach to cross your name off of a recruit list.
In terms of ethnocentrism, the visual I had in mind was the Mets dugout with Reyes, Delgado, etc seemingly celebrating every run scored as if it were game 7 of the WS. To some this is a disgrace to baseball and mocking the opponents. To Latin players (based on the small sample of Latin guys I played with) it’s just an extension of who they are and how they play. They greeted each other and us in the same manner. There were no constrained head nods or “sup dudes” that white players limit themselves to. Everything was loud, exuberant, and over top. Had Latin music been played in th cafeteria, it very well may have been “Lima Time” every meal.
In both HS and college we were favorites to go the state and the WS (D3). As such we were conditioned not to celebrate any but a title. So when we won conference and regionals and sectionals, we treated it as if we had just won a game against the 5th best team in our conference. We did end up winning either title, and looking back I wish we would have celebrated more, instead of having the “second sucks” attitude.
In my youth Griffey and Bonds popularized the “watch it leave the park” walk down the 1st baseline, and people either like that or they don’t. But whether you think it is better or worse than Indiana-raised (and white) Scott Rolen’s sprint around the bases, is likely determined by the culture you are raised in.
In Hanley’s case he was probably more frustrated in himself than he is lazy or a baby. I would also point out that understanding something and condoning it are two different things.
There seems to be a lot more empasis on how players do things than what they do. Pujols jogs to 1st on ground balls. He’ll also steal bases. For some reason the standard has become “perfection”, instead of something more realistic.
I always love the “Protestant Work Ethic” argument. Ever seen an Ethiopian farmer work? I guarantee you he works as hard as any guy from Iowa or Nebraska.
Higher levels of literacy and more printing presses had more to do with European and US societal development, than the work ethic. People who can read and have access to books can learn and do more things than people who live in societies that don’t have as easy an access to the printed word.
Our American ancestors also “worked hard” because there was no other option. Now, if you don’t want to work hard, you can at least get some money. Not working hard back then meant starvation. Not really a”choice” to work hard.
Great article. Initially, I was inclined to think that hustle might be a skill like others. However, after thinking over this case a bit more, it seems to me that speed is the skill that would have allowed hanley to get to the ball more quickly. Hustling is just the decision to employ this speed. However, whether this decision to use his speed is truly Hanley’s choice, or the result of nature or societal conditioning, seems to come down to the question of whether we really have free will or not. A much larger question for which I doubt we will find an answer.
The Green Bay Packers have, in the past at least, assigned a former player to help the induction of new players into professional football. Coach McCarthy often talks about getting the draft picks up to NFL strength levels and getting them used to NFL schedules. If minor league baseball is anything like college, there will be some learning about how to take the next level of seriousness. Much like in high school football practice you didn’t know you could be that tired and sore and still come back the next day until the coach made you, the same thing probably happens as you move to even higher levels of sports. Which leads me to the old quote of how Jeff Bagwell could practice his swing on the toilet. Which is just funny to picture.
Anon: I was quoting Bradshaw, and from memory, but at 6 seconds a pass, 10 passes a minute, 100 passes in 10 minutes, 1000 passes in 1 hour and 40 minutes, 1000 might be an exaggeration but I’m guessing it was the literal truth.
If he were just bigger and stronger and faster and better, imagine how good David Ecfkstein would be. Feel better now?
The entire question is being miscast, I believe. The real issue fans have is not “laziness” per se, but a failure to play the game the right way all the time. With professional athletes, doing so is what they are paid enormous sums for, and what fans expect. Manny Ramirez takes more batting practice than most other players, and the Patriots to a man said Randy Moss was one of the hardest workers at practice they had. If he conserves energy during the game by not blocking as much as he should, then that’s the price you pay for all those long sprinting catches.
But there is a “right’ way to play the game. The right way in playing defense in baseball involves minimizing the number of bases opponents can advance. This means hitting the cut-off man, covering bases that other defenders have left, etc.. Failure to do these things, isn’t lazy, they’re “mental errors.” If Hanley Ramirez’ failure to retrieve a ball in the outfield allows baserunners to advance further than they otherwise would have, then he is really guilty of a basic error in judgment. He probably thought it didn’t matter when the ball was retrieved. Fans expect better judgment from people schooled most of their lives in the game. That’s what this is really about, I think.
Similarly, failure to run out a pop-up is simply a value judgment that it will be caught. It isn’t the right way to play the game, even though 99.9% of the time that judgment is correct. Players who play the right way all the time are said to be always hustling, but in reality they are also exhibiting greater professional judgment.
So, basically, if David Eckstein were someone else, he’d be better. *grin*
In some areas, David Eckstein is “elite”, such as contact % per swing and things of that nature.
When do we ever hear anyone say “If only he made contact like David Eckstein?”
Despite attributes, baseball employs more skill in certain things than other sports do. There was a pretty good study done a couple of years ago that tried to quantify certain skills in sports and come up with an overall breakdown between the skill and “athleticism” components of each sport. IIRC, baseball followed by hockey, were the top 2 major skill sports.
A simple way of saying it is “David Eckstein is good at certain things, not so good at others.” Very few athletes have high amounts of both athleticism and skill (compared to their professional peers).
If I told you how easy it is to get a job in this recession, you wouldn’t believe me. But the truth is more employers are going online to find people just like you and me who are ready to work at a good job (one that pays good!). The only thing that makes sense is to stop wasting time driving around all day filling out a dozen applications and going from one boring low paying job to another. I found this site that pretty much matches you up with your dream job that is available in your city right now. I have found it very helpful. Go to YouFindWork.com
Great article, thanks.