@Lou Priluker I get the frustration, but to bring this back to the bigger purpose of this community, I think this is a great opportunity to explore how our biases shape the way we understand baseball, or really anything in life. Marsh hits a homer after talking to Arraez, so it’s tempting to conclude the conversation caused it. Maybe it helped! But how many times do those same conversations happen and the player strikes out? That’s an example of post hoc reasoning, assuming one event caused another simply because it happened first. Or the runner on third with less than two outs. We often assume getting him in at all costs is good baseball, when sometimes giving up an out actually costs us more runs. Other times, that one run is exactly what we need. The situation matters, and our existing beliefs can sometimes keep us from seeing that. We also sometimes interpret failure as choking or a lack of toughness without knowing what’s actually happening. That’s an example of the fundamental attribution error, where we attribute someone’s behavior to their character without fully understanding the circumstances. These are biases I’ve had to learn to recognize in my own thinking, and they’re incredibly easy for all of us to fall into. And this is where I think the lesson for us as leaders and coaches really matters. When we see behavior we don’t like, our first instinct is often to label it. He’s lazy. He’s selfish. He doesn’t care. But those labels are assumptions, not necessarily reality. Instead, we need to get curious. Ask questions. Understand what the person was thinking, what they were feeling, and why they made that decision. That doesn’t mean excusing the behavior or lowering our standards. It means understanding the problem before deciding how to address it. We can hold people accountable for what they do without assuming we know why they did it. I’m always happy to explore more of these baseball myths and biases if there’s interest. I just try to be careful about assigning blame or questioning individuals publicly when I don’t have firsthand knowledge of what’s happening behind the scenes. I think that’s only fair to the people involved.

@Lou Priluker It’s great! I appreciate you coming with thoughts and questions!

@Neil Piwovar I think this speaks to the importance of alignment and growth mindset. Hire people who believe in what you’re trying to accomplish, establish clear standards and expectations, and then invest in developing them toward that shared goal. I don’t think we want blind compliance either. We want people who think for themselves, challenge ideas, and take ownership of their development while staying aligned with where we’re trying to go.

Totally agree!

@Andrew Kyle good question! Thanks for asking! Andrew, I look at this through 3 buckets: mind, body, and skill. Does the player understand what we’re asking? Are they physically capable of doing it? Or is it truly a skill issue? I think we often make the mistake of treating everything as a skill problem without addressing the first two. If it is skill, I’m a big believer in a clean progression with feedback, then gradually increasing variability, speed, time constraints, and decision-making demands to better represent the game. Game exposure matters, but I think we can be much more intentional about preparing players for it.

@Andrew Kyle Bingo! I think that’s spot on. At younger levels the bigger more physical kids dominate, but they do it through sheer force not skill most of the time. Then when people catch up they aren’t mentally developed to deal with the challenge and failure

@Perry Block I think this is a good example of why it’s important to understand what’s driving someone’s behavior before reacting. When people make mistakes, especially ones they know have consequences, sometimes their first instinct is to avoid the conversation. I’ve seen this in leadership. If people think every mistake is going to be met with anger or punishment, they’re less likely to be honest when something goes wrong. That doesn’t mean we lower the standard or ignore accountability. It means we create an environment where people are willing to tell us the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. You can’t solve a problem you don’t know about, and how we respond in those moments has a big impact on whether people come to us the next time something goes wrong.

@Neil Piwovar good question. In baseball it’s very analytical. There are models that give projections. That usually is what they expect the job to be. It then is on the coaches and the players to create plans and monitor success. Good orgs can then talk about roles, playing time, etc. To your point though I believe we can train and help with 3 things: 1. Mind 2. Physical capacity 3. Skill Sports are good at the first 2 and not great at the first