About a month ago we discussed "the art of metis," as described by Detienne and Vernant, and found numerous examples of metis in sport. Metis is the intangible trait that is separate from talent, athleticism, and other skills and lets a person seize the critical moment and make it his own. In class we named athlete after athlete who displayed considerable metis over his career. (Michael Jordan was the clear favorite.)
However, while most of us agreed that metis existed and was a critical part of sports, many decision makers in the sport of baseball seem to disagree. One of the major characteristics of metis is that "it is applied to situations which...do not lend themselves to precise measurement, exact calculation, or rigorous logic." But a growing number of baseball general managers try to break down skill in talent to a solely numerical basis. The sport was once dominated by old-school GMs with roots in scouting, and those people based their impressions on players on things they picked up while seeing them live; things like "going all out" or "being clutch." Although scouting remains a critical part of the game, many new-school GMs don't have their roots in scouting but rather are Ivy educated businessmen aiming to bring an objective approach to evaluating talent grounded in statistics. These two types of GMs can judge players in totally different ways. A scout's GM can judge a shortstop by saying "he reacts well, stays low, stays on top of the ball" while a new-age GM can quantify those characteristics with a number called "range factor," which is the number of chances fielded in a player's playing time.
History has proven that both of these methods can be successful. Although modern publications like Michael Lewis' "Moneyball" depict the old-guard scouting approach as outdated, GMs such as the Twins' Terry Ryan have been very successful building franchises the old-fashioned way. But no one can deny GMs like the Athletics' Billy Beane, the Red Sox' Theo Epstein, or the Indians' Mark Shapiro have been quite good at building teams based on a more statistical approach. What is undeniable though, is that this increasing emphasis on statistics is eliminating our idea of metis in baseball. Metis is unquantifiable, yet many GMs seek to quantify everything in the sport. Indeed, the aspect of the game many would consider the most obvious example of metis, clutch hitting, is considered a fallacy by many who look at the stats. It seems like in baseball metis is no longer what it used to be.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
The Great Draft Debate: Potential or Production
Last week we read and discussed Hyland's work, The Philosophy of Sport, which discussed among other things the mindset athletes are in when they play sports. Hyland calls the attitude "responsive openness," which is an idea with two parts. The athlete must have openness, meaning he is acutely aware of his surroundings and the relationship between himself and the other players on the field. This awareness includes the ability to recognize an opportunity as well as an unnecessary risk. The athlete also must be responsive, that is able to act on what he observes in the proper manner.
The greatest athletes have impeccable openness as well as an incredible ability to respond. Both attributes are critical to succeeding in sport. However it seems that modern talent evaluators in sports tend to prize responsiveness, that is an athlete's raw athleticism and ability, over openness. This is exemplified in the perennial debate of potential over production. Consider two extreme types of athletes: The first, named Production, is not the greatest physical specimen, not especially strong or fast, but has consistently demonstrated his ability to make great decisions and play under control by his strong production over four years. The other athlete, Potential, has never produced at a high level but is blessed with jaw-dropping speed, breathtaking leaping ability, and incredible strength. Today's general managers and talent evaluators usually ignore Production and try to sign Potential, because they believe he may one day learn openness and develop into a great player. They argue that athleticism and potential cannot be taught, but knowledge of the game and awareness can. But what they fail to see is that openness, the quality Production excels in, is often an innate ability as well. Every year a GM selects a high-potential yet unproven athlete who can never develop awareness and cannot become a good player. Also every year there are players who are deemed too short, too skinny, or too slow to play at a high level who are bypassed in the draft and become stars.
The NFL draft is this April, and every pro football team will be trying to acquire the best players for their franchise. Far too many will draft busts who lack the "openness" to match their physical abilities. If you want to predict who will have the best drafts, look for the general managers that appreciate awareness as well as potential, for the players they draft are frequently the best players at the next level as well.
The greatest athletes have impeccable openness as well as an incredible ability to respond. Both attributes are critical to succeeding in sport. However it seems that modern talent evaluators in sports tend to prize responsiveness, that is an athlete's raw athleticism and ability, over openness. This is exemplified in the perennial debate of potential over production. Consider two extreme types of athletes: The first, named Production, is not the greatest physical specimen, not especially strong or fast, but has consistently demonstrated his ability to make great decisions and play under control by his strong production over four years. The other athlete, Potential, has never produced at a high level but is blessed with jaw-dropping speed, breathtaking leaping ability, and incredible strength. Today's general managers and talent evaluators usually ignore Production and try to sign Potential, because they believe he may one day learn openness and develop into a great player. They argue that athleticism and potential cannot be taught, but knowledge of the game and awareness can. But what they fail to see is that openness, the quality Production excels in, is often an innate ability as well. Every year a GM selects a high-potential yet unproven athlete who can never develop awareness and cannot become a good player. Also every year there are players who are deemed too short, too skinny, or too slow to play at a high level who are bypassed in the draft and become stars.
The NFL draft is this April, and every pro football team will be trying to acquire the best players for their franchise. Far too many will draft busts who lack the "openness" to match their physical abilities. If you want to predict who will have the best drafts, look for the general managers that appreciate awareness as well as potential, for the players they draft are frequently the best players at the next level as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
