Orlando Magic
10-15-2016, 05:23 PM
Why is the ability to perform a sport under pressure or in certain weather conditions taken into account when judging someone's ability to perform/talent level at said sport? Does someone performing under pressure actually make them a better basketball, football, or baseball player? Does someone that handles cold weather better than others make that person actually better at football or baseball?
These are things I've never fully understood. Of course, I'm not suggesting that they can be completely ignored nor are they to be discounted when you're looking at trying to accomplish a goal such as making it through a postseason and getting a title. In that sense, they are extremely relevant questions and there is no denying their importance. However, from a purely objective standpoint when evaluating someone's ability at the sport while minimizing external factors, why would a guy playing poorly only in the playoffs make him a lesser player in people's eyes? I understand legacies are often built on what is accomplished in the postseason. That's not my point, either. I fully understand that aside from the fun of it, the point of sports is to win, and the final result is winning a title. Not the point I'm trying to make here... I do get that.
Let's give a ridiculous hypothetical... some NBA star comes along and averages 35 ppg, 15 rpg and 15 apg along with stellar defense during the regular season for his career and he did it numerous times against all teams, not just bottom feeders. Let's say that same said NBA star "only" averages 25 ppg, 6 rpg, and 8apg with mediocre defense during the playoffs along with zero titles across the span of his entire career.
Ignoring the factor of teammates, does that make the guy a lesser basketball player or does it just mean that's he's not mentally tough? Why is "mentally tough" something that is factored in the discussion of one's ACTUAL TALENT AND ABILITY to perform the sport?
Another hypothetical... same NBA star... same regular season stats... except this time... there are no fans present during any games all year nor in the postseason, there are no road nor home games, and the teams are not made aware of the length of a season nor what time the playoffs will start nor even how long a series will be. They are only aware that any given game could be their last. Now under these conditions let's say that the aforementioned guy goes on to win 10 titles and puts up the same stats that he did in the regular season? Does that mean he's suddenly a better player because these external psychological factors were removed? Does it really? I find the idea laughable.
The only sport that jumps into my mind that mental toughness can't be ignored, minimized nor discounted in any way shape or form when evaluating one's talent level is golf... it will truly **** you up if you aren't mentally tough and the pressure is ALWAYS easy to let in and it's there regardless of what event or time of year.
The regular season might just be more important when evaluating an individual's ability and talent at their respective sport. Postseason performance is overrated when looking at individual players.
These are things I've never fully understood. Of course, I'm not suggesting that they can be completely ignored nor are they to be discounted when you're looking at trying to accomplish a goal such as making it through a postseason and getting a title. In that sense, they are extremely relevant questions and there is no denying their importance. However, from a purely objective standpoint when evaluating someone's ability at the sport while minimizing external factors, why would a guy playing poorly only in the playoffs make him a lesser player in people's eyes? I understand legacies are often built on what is accomplished in the postseason. That's not my point, either. I fully understand that aside from the fun of it, the point of sports is to win, and the final result is winning a title. Not the point I'm trying to make here... I do get that.
Let's give a ridiculous hypothetical... some NBA star comes along and averages 35 ppg, 15 rpg and 15 apg along with stellar defense during the regular season for his career and he did it numerous times against all teams, not just bottom feeders. Let's say that same said NBA star "only" averages 25 ppg, 6 rpg, and 8apg with mediocre defense during the playoffs along with zero titles across the span of his entire career.
Ignoring the factor of teammates, does that make the guy a lesser basketball player or does it just mean that's he's not mentally tough? Why is "mentally tough" something that is factored in the discussion of one's ACTUAL TALENT AND ABILITY to perform the sport?
Another hypothetical... same NBA star... same regular season stats... except this time... there are no fans present during any games all year nor in the postseason, there are no road nor home games, and the teams are not made aware of the length of a season nor what time the playoffs will start nor even how long a series will be. They are only aware that any given game could be their last. Now under these conditions let's say that the aforementioned guy goes on to win 10 titles and puts up the same stats that he did in the regular season? Does that mean he's suddenly a better player because these external psychological factors were removed? Does it really? I find the idea laughable.
The only sport that jumps into my mind that mental toughness can't be ignored, minimized nor discounted in any way shape or form when evaluating one's talent level is golf... it will truly **** you up if you aren't mentally tough and the pressure is ALWAYS easy to let in and it's there regardless of what event or time of year.
The regular season might just be more important when evaluating an individual's ability and talent at their respective sport. Postseason performance is overrated when looking at individual players.