Nik the Trik said:
And this was our impasse. I still don't agree that it can be developed the way you do. I think a lot of it is as innate as size or speed. Even with Gardiner, he still has the tools and quickness to make some very good decisions but he also is prone to the occasional brain cramp.
Some guys are hardwired to be risk takers. There are elements of positional play that get better with age and players can retrain themselves to use their talents in different ways but, again, that's true of other abilities that you probably would say can't be taught.
A player's capacity to grow and develop in that way is a big question mark at the draft. Sure, someone like Liljegren isn't going to have physical impediments in his way but outside of size, which I think we both agree is overvalued, anyone picked in the first round is going to have the same question marks of whether or not they can train themselves to improve at the mental side of the game.
Are we discussing decision making as a skill or as an innate talent?
The definitions I'm going by:
talent: innate capability for performing a certain task (prior to formal training)
skill: ability to perform a certain task
I think both play a part, as there are some that are better at quick decision making, just as there are some that have longer strides, or better hand-eye coordination and spatial cognition out of the box. I also think those non-physiological talents can be (laboriously) taught and refined, or compensated in other ways that yield a similar effect, but not as good as if they had that talent headstart.
So Liljegren's (and Gardiner's) penchant for riskier plays, for what they perceive to be a higher payoff, can be accommodated by team structure/linemates as well as coaching (positioning, pre-programed decisions based on reference points).
If you'll recall Frank Catalanotto, bench player for the Jays some years back, he was not the most talented physically or skill-wise, but he found his place in the game by being
obsessively prepared. He wrote his own scouting report on every pitcher/catcher and umpire he ever encountered, logging every pitch and what he did with it, how the pitchers moved for those pitches, and whether there were any tipping signs.
To Bullfrog's point about applying creativity, that was sort of where our previous discussion on teaching defense vs teaching offense went. Offense has a very narrow win-condition (goal), whereas defense has a lot of outs to work with. Liljegren has oodles of talent and skill for the offensive side of the game. His defense is not bad, but it's really how he deploys his skills and chooses to play that's the issue for him.