SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
7/25-7/27 Red Sox @ Rays Series Thread
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 27, 2014 19:34:28 GMT -5
True that. You create neural pathways through incessant repetition. They used to say, to make a technique part of you, you must do it 10,000 times. Malcolm Gladwell recently made the same observation in one of his books. Of course, outstanding "natural" athletes tend to acquire these skills much more quickly than others. But it's still a mind-body connection. We've all seen guys who do better when the are suddenly called in for a spot start; we've also seen guys who just don't do well when they are place outside of their comfort zones. Ultimately execution in sports - especially in baseball - is often just relaxing and repeating a motion, whether it be a swing or throwing a pitch. Swing too hard and you're likely to pop the ball up or top it for a ground out. Overthrow or aim and you miss the zone. This is why it is the hardest of games, but also why it is so beautiful when it is played well. It's 10,000 hours and it's nonsense. I agree his assertion is B.S. There are things one could practice for 100,000 hours or more and never get. There's hard work and then there's God-given talent. No amount of the former can replicate the latter. Which is why guys like Doubront with tremendous talent not putting in the work drives me crazy.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 27, 2014 19:34:30 GMT -5
But what I do know about his mental state is that he has problems replicating the same motion with the same pitches to generate strikes when he has been in MLB as opposed to MiLB. That shows that he either suddenly loses his composure (mental), cannot repeat his motion (mental) or becomes anxious (mental). Is that true, though? I've watched more than a few of his minor league games, and it's not like he's consistent commanding his fastball in Pawtucket much more than he is in Boston. It seems more like major league hitters do a better job of laying off the borderline pitchers and generally working the count. My point is this: we should be hesitant to apply psychological/personality-based criticisms like "loses composure" or "anxious on the mound" without significant evidence that these are the real explanations for a player's struggles. Being unable to repeat your mechanics is nominally "mental" insofar as all athletic activity requires the brain to send signals to the body to do something. But physiological criticisms like losing your mechanics or having insufficient muscle memory are fundamentally different than the psychological criticisms identified above. Psychological criticisms come with implicit value judgments; when we start criticizing someone's psychology or personality based on flimsy evidence, we start judging them in a fundamentally different and more negative way. As such, we should have a higher threshold before we criticize someone on those grounds.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 27, 2014 19:39:55 GMT -5
There's hard work and then there's God-given talent. No amount of the former can replicate the latter. Which is why guys like Doubront with tremendous talent not putting in the work drives me crazy. See, this is exactly what I mean. You have no idea what Doubront's work habits are. Yeah, he arrived to camp out of shape once or twice, but that's nowhere near enough evidence for you to be this sanctimonious in criticizing him on essentially moral grounds.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 27, 2014 19:47:34 GMT -5
FWIW: Archer now is jumping on the Maddon, Price bandwagon with regards to Ortiz taking his sweet time going around the bases and "being bigger than the game". He was on local media interview and not very happy. Possibly Archer should have just had a better game?
Thought would let everyone know how these fans are. Very hard to attend games in that dump anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 27, 2014 19:53:28 GMT -5
In martial arts it was called "monkey mind" or "brain like a bag of cats." It means you can't relax and are forcing what should be fluid. I don't know Allen Webster at all. But what I do know about his mental state is that he has problems replicating the same motion with the same pitches to generate strikes when he has been in MLB as opposed to MiLB. That shows that he either suddenly loses his composure (mental), cannot repeat his motion (mental) or becomes anxious (mental). I personally believe he should pitch to contact and all these guys above AA who are inconsistent should throw from the stretch because it involves less to remember. Period. By this definition, *everything* is mental ... while what you say is technically true ("kinetic intelligence" is one term for what you're talking about), calling that "mental" isn't the common use of the term, at all. I mean, you could say that WMB's problems hitting are "mental" because he doesn't process the incoming pitches quickly enough. It makes the term meaningless. Will Middlebrooks is a different case - hitting is different than pitching. He may be a stimulus-response guy who doesn't have the God given talent to be an elite hitter. I think there was a study not long ago that showed the vast bulk of elite hitters had or have 20-15 vision. The difference in response time with 20-15 vision and 20-20 vision was just enough to miss on a 92 mph fastball. If you try to compensate and cheat fastball you'll get beat by breaking pitches. Middlebrooks was recently diagnosed needing glasses or contacts. This may help him, or it may be he just doesn't have the level of eye-hand to be elite. It could also be his learned skills of swinging in the zone - or out of it - something he could get away with in the minors, but not against the best pitchers in the world. It's likely a combination of the two. Doesn't mean he couldn't be a .260/.320/.480 or better hitter, but it will take work - and staying healthy. Webster's issue is completely different. He HAS demonstrated (so far) a greater degree of repeatable pitch control in AAA but he can't replicate that same control in MLB (so far). That's a mental thing on some level.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jul 27, 2014 19:55:14 GMT -5
FWIW: Archer now is jumping on the Maddon, Price bandwagon with regards to Ortiz taking his sweet time going around the bases and "being bigger than the game". He was on local media interview and not very happy. Possibly Archer should have just had a better game? Thought would let everyone know how these fans are. Very hard to attend games in that dump anymore. Archer is to little in the game to mouth off to much about Big Papi. If he next wants to start a fight by throwing at Papi, well he would be lights out after that ... and when he wakes up maybe the game would seem bigger to him?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 27, 2014 19:57:07 GMT -5
There's hard work and then there's God-given talent. No amount of the former can replicate the latter. Which is why guys like Doubront with tremendous talent not putting in the work drives me crazy. See, this is exactly what I mean. You have no idea what Doubront's work habits are. Yeah, he arrived to camp out of shape once or twice, but that's nowhere near enough evidence for you to be this sanctimonious in criticizing him on essentially moral grounds. And notably this is the year he DIDN'T show up out of shape. Basically, practice and repetition may or may not help players improve, and these players may or may not be practicing and repeating things. Big if true, in the parlance of our times.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 27, 2014 20:03:34 GMT -5
There's hard work and then there's God-given talent. No amount of the former can replicate the latter. Which is why guys like Doubront with tremendous talent not putting in the work drives me crazy. See, this is exactly what I mean. You have no idea what Doubront's work habits are. Yeah, he arrived to camp out of shape once or twice, but that's nowhere near enough evidence for you to be this sanctimonious in criticizing him on essentially moral grounds. Sanctimonious-sanctischmoneous - he showed up to camp out of shape both times he was told he had a legit chance to make the major league team. He's got a ton of natural talent. With all the resources, nutritional information and work plans available to these guys all he had to do was connect the dots and put in the work both off seasons he shows up out of shape TWICE? Those actions speak volumes. One guy in a million gets to that point. He gets there twice and blows it off. The first time may be a mistake. The second time in a row!) is lack of discipline and some level of laziness. I'd say the same thing to his face. "You've got to earn it pal. They asked you to try. You let yourself, your opportunity and your teammates down twice. You haven't earned it."
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 27, 2014 20:05:12 GMT -5
FWIW: Archer now is jumping on the Maddon, Price bandwagon with regards to Ortiz taking his sweet time going around the bases and "being bigger than the game". He was on local media interview and not very happy. Possibly Archer should have just had a better game? Archer is consistently anti-showboating.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jul 27, 2014 20:15:07 GMT -5
Looked and don't see that short interview yet, but the war of words via twitter is out there on a CBS link already.: Archer is mad
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 27, 2014 20:27:57 GMT -5
There are way too many unwritten rules in baseball. I'm a big papi fan and I will admit sometimes I think he is a little too vocal, but taking an extra 6 seconds around the bases is a whole different animal than throwing at someone. One action is showboating the other is an attack on a player.
Really the al needs a fighting rule like in hockey. You hit a batter intentionally when you don't bat, the batter could come out and fight you.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Jul 27, 2014 20:28:52 GMT -5
With the possible exception of Joba Chamberlain, Chris Archer is the last person in the league who should be griping about 'showboating' from somebody else.
Personally, I dislike that you aren't allowed to show emotion in baseball anyway, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 27, 2014 20:40:49 GMT -5
But what I do know about his mental state is that he has problems replicating the same motion with the same pitches to generate strikes when he has been in MLB as opposed to MiLB. That shows that he either suddenly loses his composure (mental), cannot repeat his motion (mental) or becomes anxious (mental). Is that true, though? I've watched more than a few of his minor league games, and it's not like he's consistent commanding his fastball in Pawtucket much more than he is in Boston. It seems more like major league hitters do a better job of laying off the borderline pitchers and generally working the count. My point is this: we should be hesitant to apply psychological/personality-based criticisms like "loses composure" or "anxious on the mound" without significant evidence that these are the real explanations for a player's struggles. Being unable to repeat your mechanics is nominally "mental" insofar as all athletic activity requires the brain to send signals to the body to do something. But physiological criticisms like losing your mechanics or having insufficient muscle memory are fundamentally different than the psychological criticisms identified above. Psychological criticisms come with implicit value judgments; when we start criticizing someone's psychology or personality based on flimsy evidence, we start judging them in a fundamentally different and more negative way. As such, we should have a higher threshold before we criticize someone on those grounds. So you agree with me then that he's not a #1, he's not a #2 and he's probably not even a #3 - which was my point after seeing this guy several times last year and continues to be my point - even though we have several people here who still apparently believe he is much more than that. And it sounds like you agree with me that he can't repeat his delivery enough to throw strikes consistently. Good man. And yet, even though you agree with me on all this you're jumping on me because you don't like the way I reached those conclusions? That's like telling Pedroia in 2011 - "Hey, the way you're hitting over .300 and more than 20 HRs? Yeah - you're doing it all wrong!" Anyway, what's it matter if I think it's because he can't control his delivery because he can't successfully learn the skills well enough to repeat at the MLB level and you think he can't control his delivery because...he can't control his delivery (which last I checked is a learned skill)? The stuff is filthy but until Webster LEARNS how to throw it for strikes when he wants to throw it for strikes (or even, like, 80% of when he wants to throw it for strikes), he is a #5 starter, at best. I'd rather let him pursue control in the minors and let him build up some decent numbers - like he has this year - so he can maintain or even build trade value with a few GMs who think he is as good as he looks in the minors. Or even better who think - "That guy's stuff is filthy. I bet we can fix him." And guess what - I really would LOVE to be completely wrong on him and wake up with a #2 starter named Allen Webster next year. In fact, I'd LOVE saying "I was completely wrong about this guy. I never thought it would click for him. But it has and wow. Now I love him!" next year while watching him shut down Tampa, the Yankees, and Buck PoutyFacePantLoad Showalter and Orioles in successive complete games. That's a lot more fun than watching "DiceK, Part 2: They Call Him Allen."
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 27, 2014 21:07:10 GMT -5
And yet, even though you agree with me on all this you're jumping on me because you don't like the way I reached those conclusions? Yep (well, kind of; I think he projects more like a third/fourth starter). Frankly, for me, the logic matters more than the conclusion. A lot of smart, informed people can reasonably disagree on how good a given player is. But if you judge players based on wildly speculative armchair psychology, then yeah, I'm going to call you out on it.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jul 27, 2014 21:15:20 GMT -5
A few coments:
1) Gladwell's position is being completely distorted here. He at no point said that everyone could be an elite athlete if they just practiced. He said something to the effect that what sets elite althletes apart from other top athletes is very often a ton of practice as in 10,000 hours. If they were a chess player, violinist or a Michael Jordan level athlete. It is intended to describe a world class performer, an outlier.
2) I for one never felt that Doubront was ever that gifted anyway. He did pretty well to get as far as he has with his God given talents IMO. And I do think sometimes people stereotype blacks and latinos as lazy, and that still happens at even elite levels of sports from what I've seen. Sometimes we percieve different cultures as one thing when they are very often just stereotypes. Someone somewhere said Doubront was lazy or he showed up out of shape once and there you have it for the rest of his career. The guy was strong enough mentally to get this far and pitch well in the playoffs after being slighted. He's just not more than a 5th starter material and he did well to make it as far as he did.
3) Webster did start pitching late and the mlb sample size is still pretty darn small. If some GM wants to offer us Kris Bryant I'm taking that deal but it hurts us little to keep him in AAA until he gets it right even for another year if necessary. If he is almost out of options trade him to a team who can have him learn at the mlb level but as far as I'm concerned trade Lester and give him starts in mlb now.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 27, 2014 21:50:41 GMT -5
And yet, even though you agree with me on all this you're jumping on me because you don't like the way I reached those conclusions? Yep (well, kind of; I think he projects more like a third/fourth starter). Frankly, for me, the logic matters more than the conclusion. A lot of smart, informed people can reasonably disagree on how good a given player is. But if you judge players based on wildly speculative armchair psychology, then yeah, I'm going to call you out on it. Or maybe I have a lot more experience and education with learned repetition high skill development than a few others here and I was bringing that skill set to bear on this with an informed opinion. And my speculation was based on repeated observation and outcome evidence. That and I was giving the benefit of the doubt to people here who said he was repeating his motion better and having more successful outcomes in the minors, and to the stats, which seemed to indicate that. What I saw was the same guy who can throw a 2-seamer for a strike on one pitch but can't do it again to the same location two or three tries later, but then does it twice in a row the next inning. In other words he can't (hasn't yet) figured out how to recall what he did in those 35 or so successful pitches he threw during this game (or in any other game or bullpen). He can't hit the mitt consistently and it doesn't appear to be due to injury or lack of stuff. Total monkey mind. Or a bag of cats in his head. Or failure to repeat optimum kinesthetic performance. It's all the same. .
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 27, 2014 22:02:26 GMT -5
It's for sure his muscles haven't quite remembered it all, yet. Given that he only started repeating those motions, and developing those secondary pitches since he signed up for the minors, it's not all that surprising. I'm inclined to stay away from the deeper synaptic meaning, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 27, 2014 22:05:13 GMT -5
Anyway, great win.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 27, 2014 22:19:31 GMT -5
It's for sure his muscles haven't quite remembered it all, yet. Given that he only started repeating those motions, and developing those secondary pitches since he signed up for the minors, it's not all that surprising. I'm inclined to stay away from the deeper synaptic meaning, but that's just me. Yup. It's in him now, and we know that because he does have sequences of repeated success. It's just accessing it through further firming up the neural pathways with more work on optimum repetition - which, in all but the most freakish of athletes is essential with high skill activities - but also through recognizing and cultivating his own personal mindset that optimizes the success sequences. All starters do this differently, but if you read the literature and talk to successful major league starters, all do it in some way. Most have or had specific pre and in game rituals and queues that get them in their optimal mental states for success. They also have other small rituals to bring them back to that state, and queue their optimum chain of movement going into the pitch, that they employ when their ritual has been messed with (i.e. a key hit or HR that you were specifically trying to prevent, threw exactly what you wanted, where you wanted - and Ortiz put it 10 rows into right field anyway).
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Jul 27, 2014 22:54:28 GMT -5
It's for sure his muscles haven't quite remembered it all, yet. Given that he only started repeating those motions, and developing those secondary pitches since he signed up for the minors, it's not all that surprising. I'm inclined to stay away from the deeper synaptic meaning, but that's just me. The average male attains his full physical height at 23.9 years of age. At some point after that age is reached "muscle memory" develops on a body that is no longer changing. It remains static (more or less) for the next 15-20 years. Lanky pitchers have more difficulty harnessing their physiques until they reached this point. Randy Johnson comes to mind. More recently Andrew Miller. IMHO Allen Webster may indeed fall into this category. Maybe not to the extreme that Johnson and Miller came under but not far from it. Webster has shown improvement with his command/control. Perhaps not to the point we would have all hoped to have seen by now, but I view his progression positively. Is he a #2 MLB starting pitcher? Far from it at this point, but he is a serviceable # 4 or #5 at present with a #1/#2 ceiling in the foreseeable future. Does he have a "mental problem"? Did Jon Lester in 2012? Frankly I'm glad that we have a former pitcher as manager. I think this bodes well for Webster, RDLR, Barnes, Owens, etc. I am at a loss to understand why Farrell has not brought along Doubrount in better fashion. I am bullish of Red Sox pitching. I think we can "loose" up to 3 more pitchers on the current roster and actually improve the staff for 2015.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 27, 2014 23:01:24 GMT -5
I have always thought webster's issues were more mental than physical. His stuff is really good, but his mental toughness had been non existent up to this year.
Maybe this is the yeAr he puts it all together.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jul 27, 2014 23:19:20 GMT -5
I have always thought webster's issues were more mental than physical. His stuff is really good, but his mental toughness had been non existent up to this year. Maybe this is the yeAr he puts it all together. How are you judging his mental toughness? We can't just say "the stuff is too damn good for him not to succeed at the MLB level, therefore there's something wrong mentally that's holding him back." He has some very real control issues, as do tons of pitchers trying to solidify themselves on a big league roster, but his stuff is so good that it's tougher to harness than for another pitcher who gets less movement on his pitches. Combine that with the issues scouts/writers have noted about his release point (and notice this has been an issue for a while) and it doesn't sound like this is a guy whose number one issue plaguing him is being fragile mentally. There's really nothing to support that accusation, but so many people have done it, more so with Webster than I can recall with any other talented prospect. Is it the seeming lack of intimidation and/or confidence in his appearance? His kid-like face? The truth is, as soon as he gets comfortable with his release point and improves his feel for his pitches, none of that stuff matters at all. Once he works out those non-psychological kinks and becomes an effective starting pitcher, no one is going to question his toughness. Let's just ease up on attributing the wait for him to emerge on his head when there are obvious mechanical improvements to be made.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 27, 2014 23:22:25 GMT -5
It's for sure his muscles haven't quite remembered it all, yet. Given that he only started repeating those motions, and developing those secondary pitches since he signed up for the minors, it's not all that surprising. I'm inclined to stay away from the deeper synaptic meaning, but that's just me. Does his lack of amateur experience really matter six years into his pro career? This isn't entirely a rhetorical question but as you can probably guess I'm very doubtful that it does.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 27, 2014 23:55:12 GMT -5
I understand your scepticism. It could be there will never be anything there. But I do take into account that he was largely throwing for the hell of it in high school, a "special" mop-up guy who threw heat and screwed around with a curve. Hell he makes Trey Ball look like a seasoned vet by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 28, 2014 6:10:12 GMT -5
No, it's not all the same. There's a difference between saying that he can't throw the ball over the plate and saying he can throw over the plate but chooses not to (because he chooses to nibble or lacks mental toughness or whatever). Literally all of my posts on this thread have tried to elucidate that point and explain why doing the latter is unwarranted and highly presumptive.
|
|
|