What I’d advise to begin with, is that you have to understand that a reader with no personal knowledge about you has nothing other than your words to go by. Here’s what you said in a response to a post I made, that was in response to a post you made.
The only thing in any of the posts that hinted at genetics, was when bbrages said “1) natural ability to throw hard and accurately”, along with two other traits, in response to my question about what were the traits of “a natural born pitcher”.
So, I read what you wrote as more of a statement of what you thought my opinion was, then questioning it, rather than just asking for my opinion. Those are two very different things, and will often elicit two very different responses from me. Evidently I mistook your meaning, but its ok.
[quote]Second, the first point the poster made was about natural ability. While i agree ability, focus and toughness can be nurtured and developed, natural ability, focus, and toughness can give an athlete an edge over the competition that has to learn these traits. This is my opinion.
That is the reason I asked your opinion. [/quote]
WHOA there big fella. We need to have communication here, and that starts with both of us understanding what we’re talking about. Which “poster’s” points are we talking about? If you mean bbrages, here’s his 3 points.
1) natural ability to throw hard and accurately
2) an ability and desire to perform "in the spotlight"
3) mental toughness, the ability to stay focused through adversity
If that’s what you’re talking about, you’ve glommed them all together, where I didn’t see them that way a all. I saw only the 1st as talking about “natural” or “genetically” provided ability. I didn’t interpolate natural into the other two, which you seem to have done. Now are we saying bbrages meant all 3 of those items “naturally” occurring in “a natural born pitcher”, or that that’s your interpretation?
Now if its only my opinion about how much if any role genetics play in pitching, that’s one thing. If its about something else, its another. I’ll tell you my opinion on the 1st, if you want an opinion about the later, you’ll have to ask about it some other way so I’m sure to understand the question.
Genetics play a huge role in pitching, but not as much as many people think or why they think that way. Genetics provide the basic ability to walk and chew gum at the same time, as well as millions of other physical traits, but playing baseball doesn’t require players to be the most genetically superior people in order to play. It certainly makes it easier in many cases, but not necessarily impossible of one doesn’t have the “best” genes. FI, if one isn’t blessed with great eyesight, it will likely affect whether or not he becomes a great hitter a lot more than if he becomes a great pitcher.
Likewise, have the physical ability to throw a ball 100MPH will likely be more important to a pitcher than a DH. But on the other hand, having perfect eyesight won’t help a hitter who can’t master the mechanics of putting a bat in the right position to hit a ball or learn the strike zone, any more than being physically able to throw a ball 100MPH won’t help a pitcher if he can’t master pitching mechanics to the point where he can throw the ball with some regularity, where he wants to.
In the end, no matter what genetics one possesses, unless they aren’t given the opportunity to develop them through “nurture”, they don’t do anyone any good. FI, I’m sure that in a world of 6 billion people, there are more than enough who have the genetics to throw a ball 100MPH, but if they live in an African Jungle or in the bleakest parts of Siberia, the chances they’ll become a ML pitcher are pretty slim. Along with that, since there are so many factors to pitching success other than velocity, even if one has the genes to throw 100MPH, he may well be outshined by the kids who have other traits that mean just as much.
So in the end, I don’t think nature is nearly as important as nurture, but it has to be present to some degree.