Lewis, Kirilloff Provide High Character, Huge Potential

Not to belabor, but to me the "character" I want in a player is someone who makes his teammates better. This can occur in a lot of ways, but probably involves treating them with respect, showing respect for the game, working hard to improve, etc. If the Twins are drafting players who can make each other better, then they should succeed.

Character matters. I hope they have more of Mike Trout's character less of Joe Mauer's character and none of Sano's character. 

Promising signs of professionalism. True professionals committed to excellence share many ‘high-character’ traits...the ones that lead to results.

I’ll do my best to keep things brief(ish). (Warning, I failed.)

Seth wrote an article and titled it as being at least partially about “high character.” I thought that was appropriate – the front office has talked about character being a priority, but we all know that it’s not as easily quantifiable as fastball speed, etc. His article was great and, I have to assume, seems to capture their spirit well. I also appreciated it because, stats geek that I am, I can only handle so much fWAR and BABIP. It was nice to see their human side.

(Aside: If the “character” language comes up from the front office around this year’s draft, I think an interesting article would be a conversation with the powers-that-be. What attributes are they looking for in “high-character” people? Is it vocal leadership? Humility? The ability to make people around them better? Are there certain attributes they prioritize? Do they do any quantifiable stuff like the NFL attempts?)

I added an item that, from my limited perspective, seems to support Seth’s description of Lewis. Based on the number of likes, at least a few seemed to appreciate that addition.

ThejcKmp named the challenge that comes with trying to identify character and what it’s worth. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I read it as even asking whether the notion of “good character” is over-rated. I thought he raised his questions tastefully and that he tried to emphasize that he wasn’t accusing anyone of anything improper.

ThejcKmp introduced the issue of race, but I thought did it very appropriately. From the post: “There’s another reason I always feel uncomfortable with that word. I hesitate to even make this point because it may be divisive but I’ve (unscientifically) noticed that when we apply character, we tend to do it with white players.” In reality, there is scientific data that suggests that different races (or genders, or other characteristics in which we tend to group people) are viewed differently when it comes to demonstrating various attributes or personality traits.

I appreciated the response and said so. I named my own wonderings about the words we describe certain players, also using race as my reference. Similarly, I tried to do it tactfully and tried to emphasize that it was a wondering on my part. To give it a bigger context, I used an example from outside Twins Daily. I could have similarly described conversations I’ve had with an African-born professional athlete friend who has experienced what it means to be viewed differently because of his race, both on and off the field. In following his career through our local newspapers, I’ve seen a difference in how he was portrayed compared to white teammates. In statements like, “He carries himself with a lot of humility,” it was clear to me that it was occasionally code for “He carries himself with a lot of humility (for a guy with dreds).”

There have been varied responses. Several have noted in various ways that this is rarely an all-or-nothing thing, particularly when discussing something as broad as race. We can all name “high-character” black or Latino guys. We can all name “low-character” white guys. There is often going to be greater difference within a group than there is between groups.

There have also been comments about the appropriateness of bringing race into the discussion. As one who did, I can only speak for myself. I vacillated about whether to apologize for doing so, but decided to let my comments stand, for at least a few reasons.

First, the conversation has made me think a bit more about how we view “character” in a player and whether that’s different from one race to another. Perhaps it’s been beneficial in some way for others as well. If so, I consider that a positive.

Second, to take that a step further, I hope we can also recognize that sport is part of a bigger society. Baseball made a difference in broader society’s conscious views of race on April 15, 1947, and beyond. Perhaps we in this little corner of the sports world can grow just a little bit in how we think about a divisive issue.

Finally, over the past while, I’ve come to think differently about how we ask our questions and make our statements on difficult topics. (Please note: I am not accusing anyone of the following.) But when we say, “It’s okay to talk about that, but not in this context,” we run the risk of sweeping an issue under the rug and avoiding it.

Naming an issue is important, as is naming it in the right context. In some cases, it’s a big action. Had John Carlos and Tommie Smith raised their fists after a junior high dual meet in some unknown county, no one would have cared. But they made a visible statement in a particular context and the 50th anniversary of their act will no doubt be commemorated this fall.

I don’t have that much courage. I doubt my post will be remembered 50 days from now, let alone 50 years. But I consider Twins Daily a safe place, for which I am thankful to you alll, so I took the small step and joined the conversation. I hope people will hear my previous (and this) statement in the spirit with which they were written.

I said it would be “brief(ish),” and I’m now at roughly 1,000 words. If you’ve read this far, thanks for listening. If I’ve offended any, I apologize.

To the moderators, if you want to leave this as is, I’m fine with that. If you would prefer to use it to start its own thread, I’m fine with that (though I’d prefer to tweak it a bit for context). And if you so deem, I will regretfully accept my first “warning points.”

In any case, I will now move myself over to tonight’s Game Thread.

On the issue of character: Perhaps I'm naive or Pollyanna, but race has never made a difference when defining character. (Not a swipe, just my feelings). Character doesn't mean church going, or non-church going. It simply means being a good, decent, honest person who treats people with honesty and respect.

From a sports perspective, however, I believe the term character has a broader context. To me it means, despite your level of talent and ability, you are willing to put in the work to be better, and make your team better. It means not feeling you are entitled because of athletic gifts.

Regarding Lewis and Khiriloff both, while different talents, they both seem to shine with ability, potential, and yes, character. They won't be long for Cedar Rapids. Can you imagine them beginning next season at AA if they can post even similar numbers at Ft Myers to finish out the season?

Talent and work ethic, I think these two are fast risers!

If you remove Romero from the discussion as he is now in Minnesota, and just focused on the milb system, with all due respect and love for Gonsalves and Gordon, wouldn't you rank these two young men and Graterol as your top 3 right now?

Defining character shouldn't be this hard. 

 

The comments of this article should be about how good these guys are. Maybe when they'll move up to Ft. Myers or when they''ll get to the big leagues. Maybe some questions about the things they could be working on. But instead we're discussing "'character" as if it's some negative thing... 

 

I'm in awe... 

I don't think that anyone thinks character or high character guys is a negative thing.  That statement seems exaggerated to me.  The issue seems to be that most everyone in MiLB ball has high character and a high baseball IQ.  If you can name some guys who don't maybe that would help better define why and or how these guys are different than their teammates.

I get that Royce is a bit more extroverted, charismatic and possibly more thoughtful about everyone enjoying the game than some other players and that's great.  But I guess I don't buy into the narrative that that makes him a better baseball player than his teammates who also have high character and express themselves in different ways perhaps like Joe Mauer.

The issue appears to be that character as a definition is watered down and leadership is in the eye of the beholder.  Not that character is a negative thing.

I don't think anyone is saying that it makes him a better baseball player... and it's not about the charisma. Kirilloff is quiet and also of high character.

 

And yes... but when everyone talks about Royce''s leadership and work ethic and the joy he brings and how others feed off of that... it's a good thing. And when people watch Kirilloff work and hit and crush and feed off of that, it's a good thing. 

Yeah I agree but I also think that Baddoo and Miranda and most all the players on the Cedar Rapids team provide the same level of character\work ethic\quiet leadership.  So how does that make these two stand out from them?  I personally don't think it does and that is why some of us get a little testy about it.  Its a good\great thing but does it really mean much?  Their athletic skills, however, are on another level and that has meaning.

Shameless plug warning!

I have coached college and HS basketball for 17 years and how I would best define character in an athlete is this: Character is showing consistency in doing the right things on and off the court (field). It’s getting your school work done, being in class, being at practice, respecting your parents and teachers and those in authority over you. Are you the kind of kid that would break up a fight if you saw the school yard bully taking someone’s lunch money because it’s the right thing to do?Doing what is ‘right’ is subjective in certain areas, but for the most part most of us quantify it the same way. Those that consistently display and do the right thing (they don’t have to be perfect) are those that I feel have high character. These types of people are the ones you WANT on your team to help build a programs culture, be leaders, as others will gravitate towards them. Character counts, and those that have it, definitely do stand out. The best news is that it is something that can be developed, but you have to be intentional about your choices and be willing to be held accountable. The fact that these two have had their character lauded at such young ages tell me that had great structure and support growing up. Not everyone has great leadership as a youth. Character is simply making right choices on a consistent basis.