An exception to every rule

…in this case, the 10,000 hrs/10 yrs of ‘deliberate practice’ idea distilled from a recent book about top performers.

If we’re talking about a pitcher who is projected to go high in 1st round this year, as a college junior, then at the very least one would suppose that a very significant fraction of the 10,000 hr/10 yr idea must have already been accomplished–just to get the pitcher to this level in the draft. Maybe half of the 10K hours? Maybe 1/3 of it? Or 2/3?

This article about Kyle Zimmer says that he pitched ~21 innings of baseball, total, before playing college ball. First year of college–about 5 innings.

Calls himself a ‘late bloomer’…sounds like an understatement to me.

Doesn’t seem like an exception to me.

They said he was hitting 90 when he entered college. Now he is projected to be a top pick. While I understand what you are trying to do - He is hardly a representation of what Paul calls ‘mastery’.

Not that he shouldn’t be proud of where he is.

KJ, I would say that you are probably in the very small minority of people in the baseball world who would not consider “top 1st round draft pick” to be exceptional, relative to the context of college and HS baseball players.

By any credible standard, “high 1st round draft pick” satisfies the definition of “exceptional” within the demographic of baseball’s amateur draft. Arguing otherwise, you might as well say, “Nobel winners in general are not exceptional because they are not Einstein”. Or, no one who has not won a Nobel, is therefore not exceptional.

Lots of guys have good arms, there are many HS throwers who can achieve a 90 mph throw, pitchers and non-pitchers…how did Zimmer defy the odds, especially without 10K hrs/10 years of ‘deliberate practice’ for pitching under his belt.

K. Anders Ericsson’s work is interesting, a fair read, but you should read/interpret it yourself–statistical logic, combined with biographical anecdotes of historical persons, has a certain appeal and motivational use, but none of this can predict the future of specific individuals.

Look, I can see what you are doing. Zimmer has not defied any ‘odds’.

He is a good pitcher - with potential.

He is not a HOF’er.

I don’t care for the way Paul presents his info, but I know he was comparing certain (lesser) players to the absolute limit of what is known.

I think you know that too.

Who cares about this 10k hours crap? We could list a crapload of exceptions.

You say that like you have a crystal ball. Exactly why is he not a HOF’er.

pretty sure it takes 7 years of MLB to be a veteran in the game, as far as mastery

madduxs command, ryan and riveras velocity for 20+ years, wakefields #1 pitch

does mastery = HOF? yes except for Pete Rose, sad what theyve done to him

does being in the HOF make a master? no, there is no such thing as teaching a master

[quote]Look, I can see what you are doing

I think you know that too. [/quote]

What is he doing jammers?

Look if I was to make an absolute statement and present it as “the only” method, condition, circumstance…etc. I have placed myself in postion to be challenged, that challenge is good and it is principle in getting actual ideas to interact into a tangible “something”.
When we just “accept” when a person advances a notion, his or belonging to someone else, we are doing a disservice to the forum and ourselves.
Our challenge is to do it in a mature and respectful as possible, while still fully exploring the idea.

You say that like you have a crystal ball. Exactly why is he not a HOF’er.[/quote]

He is still in college - that is why. Notice how what I typed is what I meant.

Maybe 20 years from now Zimmer will have a great career to show for himself.

[quote=“kylejamers”]Doesn’t seem like an exception to me.

They said he was hitting 90 when he entered college…[/quote]

So what would be an exception? I gotta ask cause I want to know your thought process.

He was also a 3B to start, makes sense he could hit 90 prior to College. He had the arm strength

Sounds like This guy
http://www.perfectgame.org/players/playerprofile.aspx?ID=17504
Was an OF hit 91 out there and it carried over to 87 on the bump. Extremely raw.

I know there’s tons of examples like this out there, but Zimmer chose to work his tail off and develop himself into a Pitcher and in not even 3 full years he’s a potential 1st rounder, whereas this guy opted to stay in the OF and went onto play 4 years of DI ball.

[quote=“jdfromfla”]
What is he doing jamers?

Look if I was to make an absolute statement and present it as “the only” method, condition, circumstance…etc. I have placed myself in postion to be challenged, that challenge is good and it is principle in getting actual ideas to interact into a tangible “something”.
When we just “accept” when a person advances a notion, his or belonging to someone else, we are doing a disservice to the forum and ourselves.
Our challenge is to do it in a mature and respectful as possible, while still fully exploring the idea.[/quote]

Throwing 99 isn’t an exception to the rule. Besting Gerrit Cole isn’t an exception to the rule. (potentially) Getting drafting in the first round isn’t an exception to the rule. This can continue…

However, Laflippin continues to be adversarial purely because he feels like it.
10k hours is obviously not applicable in every situation. Zimmer is, apparently, a good college pitcher with a great deal of potential - but - for the sake of this conversation (and theory) he cannot be considered one of the greatest.

An ‘exceptional’ pitcher, sure - At his level. A ‘master’ or similar - I think not.

Pedro Martinez a dozen years ago was a master.
Randy Johnson - same time period.
Maddux in the mid 90’s.
etc. etc.

That is domination against the greatest players in the world.

So if he points out a hole in someones arguement he is being adversarial?? Please…
He was pointing to someone who was clearly apart from the rule Paul sounded on. Now whether or not the guy is HOF material is…well immaterial to the point, this kid is very obviously going to get drafted (Without a catastrophe) without the dedication/effort cited by another (Paul), as what is needed to attain their MLB goal…if anything you should at least understand that those comments were meant to encourage posters who may have been negatively effected by Pauls statement.
You keep defending Pauls position while saying the statement is crap…a paradox you don’t seem to grasp.
And where did La say he was a “master”?

My position is paradoxical?!

We are disagreeing on what defines a ‘top performer’ (as opined by K Anders Ericsson). You agree with Laflippin as to what defines a ‘top performer’ - I do not.

Therefore, I am wrong? Try again.

Do we?
Explain how you leaped to that conclusion…

yep

yep, I defined no thing or player as anything, I’ve discussed positions and debate, barely touching on the op (Except to acknowledge the apparent eventuality of his drafting).
Now you may not like that La is bringing this up…it is your right, that doesn’t alter the exception the he was pointing out.

Okay.

I’m going to agree with Kyle Jammers here.

Is it impressive that Zimmer went to the mound after playing a different position for a long time? Absolutely yes. He has had great success.

I don’t agree that he hasn’t spent 10,000 hours throwing a baseball to the point where he can throw 99 mph. It takes a ton of skill and practice to throw a baseball that hard. Many position players throw baseballs across the diamond above 85 mph. Look at how many times position players take the mound and throw upper 80s, low 90s. It has happened before. I’m sure he has played baseball for over 12 years and it doesn’t surprise me that he had success on the mound.

Now if he had simply stepped onto the mound having never thrown in his life I would have to agree with flippin and jd.

Look gang…before we go attributing folks to this camp or that…stop…my opinion is that Paul’s citing the 10,000 hr rule has some validity on a theorhetical plane, on the other hand…now listen closely, as this is my point for posting on this thread…I suspect La has somewhat similar thoughts here but…I think that a “rule” such as that is defeatist, I think it puts out a goal that could quite well be surpassed and still not provide the benefit it proposes to fill…while at the same time adding a constant negative thought in a process that has no need or place for it.
So disagree with that…or don’t but lets understand where folks are coming from.
We get enough of folks doubting and not believing…we as a community need to encourage the dream…not say “do this, this much or stuff it in a sock and become an accountant…or sell women’s shoes.or whatever”…I will state for the record that this sort of thinking is crap…if 99.99% of guys will never see it anyway why don’t we just all go bowling…come on…

You know what JD - I am not confused at all.

I wholeheartedly encourage people to continue playing baseball, reboot, have fun, go for the pros, whatever THEY want. I am in that exact position.

However, LA is not nobly promoting this website’s strengths, more experienced user knowledge or anything similar - I guess we are all force-fed your opinion of what has happened.

None of us (other than Paul) are saying how much time you need to spend playing (in order to achieve considerable success). Again, I do not agree with Paul, but LA is recognizing the theory and weighing this player against it.

That is not my opinion of what is happening.

So for some reason I can’t explain how you are incorrect in your assessment and characterization of my participation? You aren’t edited…(So we are just as force-fed what you say) and have all the b/w you want to lay out your point… You are incorrect in your saying that I’ve made any decision about the player mentioned
As in;

[quote]We are disagreeing on what defines a ‘top performer’ (as opined by K Anders Ericsson).
You agree with Laflippin as to what defines a ‘top performer’ - I do not. [/quote]
…why should I just let that stand? Particularly because the point I was making was completely different. I guess we should just let you say whatever and that will be the deal…the way it is…I’m thinkin no.

Not sure were this thread is headed but with the holiday weekend coming up I’d thought I’d provide a little diversionary entertainment along with a seriously good blog, on topic, and quoted at length. My apologies in advance for the rest…

Well now, hold on a second here LA! You mean to tell us someone achieved “ELITE” level status without paying his 10,000 hourly dues? Well damn, that just doesn’t seem FAIR!

Then again, maybe it’s perfectly “fair”… from a slightly different perspective.

We play our games…. Nature plays hers? :cry:

Although this situation is entirely unsatisfactory to a self-knowing creature whose genetic destiny always leads in one direction.

Given that inception date problem, along with all these confounding self-esteem issues, is it any wonder we might entertain the idea of playing the more creative Prometheus role to being a passive spectator accepting our fate?

THE CREATION OF MAN FROM CLAY

Actually we’re well on our way toward a genetically engineered future, advances likely to have already made the 10,000 hour debate into somewhat of a moot point.

THEFT OF FIRE

Nonetheless, like many others I was initially intrigued by the rule. However upon further investigation, what started out looking like the Unified Field Theory of human development, ended up being held together only at the cost of great oversimplification.

Aside from the validity of the 10,000-hour rule, its popularity might tell us as much about our inner yearnings, as it does the rule itself.

Perhaps I’ll return to the why later. For now, I’ll leave it to a young PHD, to critically examine the what for us.

Incidentally, I started a discussion related to this topic previously.

“The 10,000 rule: Genes vs Training”
http://www.letstalkpitching.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16370&highlight=

My commentary being of little importance…what is important is the Sports Scientists blog, which I’ve included again below, along with all the links to the studies. For those interested in getting a little reading in over the holiday weekend….

Here is a link to the info quoted below: you have to scroll down to the second topic on the site
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011_11_01_archive.html

Here are the links to the two articles referred to at the end of the below article.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-secrets.html

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/training-talent-10000-hours-and-genes.html

Incidentally, I found the replies to these articles are very good as the author attempts to answer many of the questions on this controversial topic.

Happy Reading!

[quote]The 10,000 hour concept

The biggest talking point, at least in the discussion I had with delegates afterwards, was the Training vs Talent debate (the first part of the talk). Here, the only reason I included this was because I saw that Matthew Syed who wrote the book “Bounce” was on the programme after me, and his talk was called “The Science of Success”. So I decided that it would be good to have a little bit of science on the topic, because he doesn’t provide it in support of his “training-sufficiency” position.

Effectively, Syed’s thesis is this: Genes and talent are over-rated, and great performers, whether they are sportsmen, doctors, musicians or businessmen, achieve expert performance not because of genetic factors or “talent”, but because they accumulate enormous volumes of deliberate practice. He has a few examples of this, and makes a compelling case, at least on the surface.

But when you really interrogate what he is saying, then you realize that the reality is that he is saying that in order to succeed at something at the highest level, to become an expert performer, you need to practice. OK then… nobody should be surprised at this, and nor would they be. The problem is that his (and Gladwell’s) position seems to exist outside of a world where genetic factors also have an influence, and it’s this exclusivity in his thinking that forces a closer look.
Unnecessarily polarizing the complexity of performance by ignoring genes and talent

So the issue is not that they advocate hard work and a lot of training, it is that they downplay the importance of talent or innate ability. I emphasized this in my own talk, but it bears repeating - if Syed is correct, and the secret to success is training and accumulating many years and hours of practice, then Talent ID is a waste of time and money. We should rather spend that money on getting 100 more children to train, because they should all (or most) become champions, provided they get through the required hours.

Note that this also completely overlooks the fact that children tend to do what they are good at, and that simply running a child through a “10,000 hour factory” is an imagined concept only. I guess the real question is why are some children good at something almost within the first moments that they start it, thereby encouraging them to do it more? It seems to me that this could be an innate difference too…

In a competitive sport, training is obviously a crucial determinant of success

But the theory that practice is important is so obvious it doesn’t need emphasis. As soon as you have competition, then within a narrow range of individuals (the top 10 tennis players, or the Olympic finalists, for example), training will become a crucial determinant of who wins and loses.

In “a small pond”, where there is no competition, it’s possible to succeed with talent alone. Just think back to school level athletics, when there’s no competition, a young athlete can show up on the day and dominate to win. But the higher the level, the better the competition, the more important training becomes. And those individuals who get attempt to by on talent alone are washed away in this more competitive landscape. Syed made this point, and of course he’s correct. But the key is that the athlete who succeeds all the way to the Olympic podium is the one who dominated without training (that is, he’s talented or genetically gifted), but then also trained incredibly hard to stay a champion as the competition intensified. In otherwords, he has BOTH talent and training.

In fact, I challenged him on this after his talk, and basically made the point that if he had walked into that venue today, with 200 people in the audience, and asked them to please raise their hands if they thought that sporting success was ENTIRELY genetic, he would have been the only person with his hand in the air. He may have been laughed out the room had he tried to propose that the current belief is that success is all genetic. Everyone knows that it is not.

Yet he seems to have arrived at this belief that someone out there believes that expert performance is achieved solely on the basis of genes and natural talent. Now, maybe I missed this in my studies, but I have not once heard this theory. The established theory in sports science is that many, many years of training are required to hone and refine skills and physiology in order to become a world or Olympic champion. The reality is that sports science does NOT believe that it’s ALL in the genes, and nor do they believe that it’s all about training. So the first problem with the 10,000 hour concept is that it attacks a straw man that need not exist.

To polarize the debate the way that he (and others, most notably Malcolm Gladwell) have done is unnecessary, and it has quite important financial and policy implications for where money should be spent by sports federations and coaches to help improve performance. Their books and emphasis are not without merit, certainly - they have emphasized how important it is that we recognize that not all young aspirant athletes develop equally, and that we may need to consider how coaching is provided to more children to prevent some from falling through the cracks. But sports science already knew this. What these books have done is spawn a theory that now says that practice is sufficient for expert performance, which it clearly is not.

The work of Elferink-Gemser, who presented today after Syed, confirmed this, because she has been studying the progress of young sportspeople for 10 years, and has found large differences between children in terms of how they respond to training sessions and coaching. But more important, she finds that it is possible to predict which children will become professional within the first few years of them entering the sports academy. In other words, by the time children are 15 or 16, there are already differences between those who will become “great” and those who are merely “good”. It has little to do with accumulating the “magical 10,000 hours”. The mere fact that these young athletes have such different responses to training tells you that you can’t generalize potential performance to a group, and that the outcome of training will also differ between individuals.
The three ‘failings’ of the 10,000 hour, “practice is sufficient” model

I think there are three key points about this 10,000 hour concept:

Firstly, if you can find ONE case of an exception, then you have disproved the “rule”. That is, if you can find a guy who trains 10,000 hours but doesn’t succeed, then you have shown that it’s not sufficient. Or, if you can find a guy who trains only 5,000 hours, but who does succeed, then you have shown that it is not necessary.

And the truth is that both of these cases exist, everywhere. Baker has shown it in triathlon, it has been found in chess (so it’s not only “physiological” sports where innate ability seems to matter), and it has been found in football, wrestling, field hockey, skeleton. Every single sport has examples of athletes who have shot to the top within a few years of starting the sport, and it is littered with athletes who fail despite doing 20,000 hours. Today I spoke with a woman whose husband taught music for a school for gifted musicians in New York, and they discover children who within months of starting are playing at near-professional expert levels. Now, unless those children have managed to get 10,000 hours of training in one hour (by discovering how to slow down time), they have achieved expertise well before the theoretical minimum.

There’s no question that talent, or innate ability, or genetics, play a role.

The second point is that there is no good evidence at all to suggest that 10,000 hours is required for expert performance. The study that is always cited is a violin study, which found that expert violinists had accumulated an AVERAGE of 10,000 hours by the time they went to music school, whereas those who were merely good had done 8,000 hours. Two problems. First, you can’t infer cause from this kind of retrospective study. Who is to say that the talented, genetically gifted violinists didn’t train more BECAUSE they had more talent from the age of 8? Perhaps their innate ability was the catalyst to get them more practice (mom sends them for lessons, and they enjoy it). And secondly, the study showed absolutely no indication of ranges or variance. So we don’t know whether there are some people who became experts with less training, and nor do we know whether some failed despite doing their 10,000 hours, because the author did not show that data. I hope I don’t have to emphasize that if either of these people exist, then the theory is wrong.

Which brings me to the third point about this theory - it is entirely unfalsifiable. To the “evangelists” who proclaim that anyone can become an expert if they just practice enough, it’s too easy and too convenient to simply dismiss the exceptions because they clearly didn’t practice in the right way. So if someone has done 25,000 hours and has not succeeded, then they simply say “He obviously didn’t practice the right way”. Or if someone becomes an expert in only 3,000 hours (which happens, all the time), they say “He must have compressed his 10,000 hours into a third of the time”.

So it’s a completely unfalsifiable theory. It cannot be proven, and it cannot be disproven. Therefore, it does not belong in science.

What the science does say - “responders” and “non-responders”

What does belong in science are studies that look at how different individuals have been shown to adapt to training. And sure enough, those studies exist, though Gladwell and Syed would never admit to them. The Heritage study, for example, took hundreds of unrelated people and gave them standardized training programmes, and then measured the responses.

The result? A complete spectrum, ranging from those who show absolutely no response to training, all the way to those who improve by more than 40% as a result of training. And as expected by the scientific theory, the difference between these people can very reliably be linked to genetic factors. Specifically, there are Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) which account for half this training resopnse. Individuals who have 9 or fewer of the identified 21 SNPs are the “low-responders”, whereas people who have 19 or more of these SNPs are “high responders”.

The answer therefore is that it’s not about having different genes, it could also be about having different variants of the same gene, the result being that you and I show completely different responses to training. And you have to ask yourself, if you are a coach, would you rather have an individual who is a “high responder” or a “low responder”? And more importantly, if you have $100,000 to invest in a sport, where do you spend it to find a champion? On talent ID, to find those “high responders”, or do you believe that anyone can succeed if you just spend the money to help them all do 10,000 hours of training? In terms of policy, it’s clear that the science, at least for this physiological variable, points you in the direction of finding the right people to spend the money on. And that means understanding the value of genetic factors to performance.

And just to dispel the idea that skill-based activities benefit more from training, when you look at studies in chess, you find that there is a massive difference in the time taken to reach Master level - some do it in 3,000 hours, some have been at it for 25,000 hours and counting. In darts, 15 years of practice (almost 15,000 hours) only accounts for 28% of the variability in performance. In other words, 72% of the difference in performance between two players cannot be explained by the hours spent training. In darts…

In sport, countless studies show that elite athletes get to the top within 6,000 hours of starting their sport, and the success of Talent ID programmes proves that talent transfer (something that is impossible if the 10,000 hour theory is correct) exists.
Conclusion - training is the realization of genetic potential

The bottom line is that a theory of deliberate practice gives us one important message - if you want to succeed, practice. Coaches around the world breathe a sigh of relief, you’re not redundant. But this is so obvious, I guess the reminder is always good though.

But the application of this theory, and the dismissal of genes that it somehow seems associated with, is a huge oversimplication and wrong, at least for sports. Syed today argued about school performance, and about how teachers should downplay the idea that some children are more “talented” with numbers or better at mathematics than others. And that’s fine, because whatever helps people improve is great. But if we’re in the business of finding Olympic champions, then this theory has no place in its polarized form.

Not only this, but it could be extremely damaging. If you take it literally, and you buy into a 10,000 hour concept, then you’ll be obliged to start training a child at the age of about 10, because you need them to become world-class in their early-20s. All good and well, except the evidence shows quite clearly that the earlier you start intensive training, the LESS likely you are to succeed. And so there are all kinds of implications for how we manage children’s sport participation.

The ultimate conclusion, in my opinion (and as always, I welcome your views), is that training is nothing more than the realization of genetic potential. Without both, you will not become an Olympic champion (in a competitive sport, that is). Training will improve everyone, and so everyone should be encouraged to train. But genetic factors determine where we start, how we respond to training (trainability), how much training we can tolerate before burnout or injury (because let’s face it, chess players rarely get injuries that force 6-week layoffs, like stress fractures), and finally, where the “performance ceiling” exists.

Training will get you to your ceiling, you’ll realize your genetic potential. But will it win you a medal? Only if you chose your parents right!

Ross

P.S. For a more detailed discussion of these issues, please do read the previous two articles I wrote on the subject:

  1. A look at the 10,000 hour concept. What does it say, and why it fails to pass the test of validity
  2. The evidence for how genes influence elite sporting performance[/quote]

We currently appear a bit conflicted when it comes to our attitude toward genetics. On the one hand, denial of our genetic destiny on many levels, on the other, a realization of the problem coincidental with a strong desire for a greater say in the matter.

For now the incept date problem and it’s unhappy outcomes continues….

Although I hear the Tyrell Corporation is working on a sequel :shock: :shock:

As for playing the many roles of Prometheus…it will no doubt be of great benefit to humanity in many instances… yet not a role, without peril.

PUNISHMENT

Out of the shadow of death comes a light? Take it all on… genetic inequality, random injury, absurdity, the unavoidable vagaries of time, all of this and more while continuing to walk up that mound carrying a “terrible resolve”. What could be more heroic than this?

Have a great Memorial weekend!

PS
For the record:

The Japanese Commander Yamamoto is alleged to have written the following in a letter shortly after Pearl Harbor,

Hired Guns said,

From my previous response to Hired Guns: The 10,000 Rule: Genes vs. Training…I stand by what I said then

[quote]A rationally sound plan starts with a rational goal. The goal of making an elite athlete by a tedious process of deliberate practice beginning at a young age ,while a popular thought (due to economics or status), is lacking insight regarding the nature of a well rounded holistic person. That was a mouthful.

It is not only a poor model to follow but unethical in its presumption that the freedom of the individual, variables in personality and desire are irrelevant. Child prodigy’s are born among average talent. Call it genetic or innate, there is obvious bias on the part of our creator for musicianship, athleticism, knowledge and a host of other gifts. Thus the “gifted” and the “challenged” coexist with the same unalienable rights.

It is this freedom to pursue ones own calling that allows an individual to chose 10,000 hrs of practice in order to honor the gift. We cannot farm elite athletes like we grow rows of cabbage. The human being is too complex for a simple concept to define it. Frankly, the whole suggestion that it could be that simple degrades the entire human race. [/quote]

The worst byproduct of any rule without exception is that it must by definition take away hope from a defined group. And for some, hope may be the only thing they’ve got.