[Goose]

I haven't responded to the player dev thread because I have some opinions on that which I need to organize in my head before I reply.  But I firmly believe that environment is equally as important as intrinsic motivation for success to happen.  If you disagree, take a look at recent Stanford Softball seasons.

And you better believe that even if methodology and pedagogy only have a 5% impact on player performance, that Stanford coaching staff will pursue that 5% because 1) every bit helps and 2) that 5% is entirely within the control of the coaching staff--so why not work with what you can control?

I absolutely agree about the 5% impact being critical. I would also argue that it is very non-linear, that the coaches contributing their 5% can create a 20% effect in other areas. Success breeds success. Unfortunately, I would also assert that the 5% is real hard to figure out. So when you say it is in the control of the coaching staff, I agree. Unfortunately, it may not be clear how to provide it. What works on some group of players may fail miserably on others. That is why I would be interested in Shaw's read on the subject. Stanford softball is a good illustration. The team was not nearly as bad as they played. It was partially because the coaches didn't do their part, but I think even more so that the players had no confidence in their ability to succeed in the conference. JH has had success extracting the most from many players, often ones with not the greatest skill set, but not everybody likes his methods. That is why hiring coaches is so hard. People who have had success as coaches suddenly don't, and visa-versa. If we could predict that, we could make lost of money!

[Goose]

I haven't responded to the player dev thread because I have some opinions on that which I need to organize in my head before I reply.  But I firmly believe that environment is equally as important as intrinsic motivation for success to happen.  If you disagree, take a look at recent Stanford Softball seasons.

And you better believe that even if methodology and pedagogy only have a 5% impact on player performance, that Stanford coaching staff will pursue that 5% because 1) every bit helps and 2) that 5% is entirely within the control of the coaching staff--so why not work with what you can control?

I absolutely agree about the 5% impact being critical. I would also argue that it is very non-linear, that the coaches contributing their 5% can create a 20% effect in other areas. Success breeds success. Unfortunately, I would also assert that the 5% is real hard to figure out. So when you say it is in the control of the coaching staff, I agree. Unfortunately, it may not be clear how to provide it. What works on some group of players may fail miserably on others. That is why I would be interested in Shaw's read on the subject. Stanford softball is a good illustration. The team was not nearly as bad as they played. It was partially because the coaches didn't do their part, but I think even more so that the players had no confidence in their ability to succeed in the conference. JH has had success extracting the most from many players, often ones with not the greatest skill set, but not everybody likes his methods. That is why hiring coaches is so hard. People who have had success as coaches suddenly don't, and visa-versa. If we could predict that, we could make lost of money!