100% Effort

[Dr. Cub]

"This free agent here, see, he goes to 11"

 

"As for your album Shark Sandwich, there was only a 2 word review which was **** sandwich". What a great movie.

[Dr. Cub]

Players cannot be expected to give 120-130% all the time. That is reserved for special occassions. It's kind of like your turbo in video games; you have to be conservative with it, or you run out and put yourself at risk. :wink:

 

She should know -- she's a doctor.

 

I'm a guy, and I am a doctor, and I even stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

[CuseCubFan69]

Players cannot be expected to give 120-130% all the time. That is reserved for special occassions. It's kind of like your turbo in video games; you have to be conservative with it, or you run out and put yourself at risk. :wink:

 

She should know -- she's a doctor.

 

I'm a guy, and I am a doctor, and I even stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

Yeah but your only a foot doctor and really....how much do you have to know? :D

[Magnetic Curses]

I'd rather have a guy who gives 75% and hits .290/.392/.523 than a scrappy hustler who gives 100% and hits .243/.260/.316.

 

And I'd rather have a scrappy hustler who gives 100% that hits 290/392/523 instead of a guy who gives 75% and hits 290/392/523 or 243/260/316.

 

so you agree that hustling is a peripheral that simply enhances, but isn't necessary?

 

again, hustling no help hit curveball.

[Outshined_One]

I'd rather have a guy who gives 75% and hits .290/.392/.523 than a scrappy hustler who gives 100% and hits .243/.260/.316.

 

And I'd rather have a scrappy hustler who gives 100% that hits 290/392/523 instead of a guy who gives 75% and hits 290/392/523 or 243/260/316.

 

What about a guy who gives only 99% and hits 291/393/524? :P

[Sammy Sofa]

I'd rather have a guy who gives 75% and hits .290/.392/.523 than a scrappy hustler who gives 100% and hits .243/.260/.316.

 

And I'd rather have a scrappy hustler who gives 100% that hits 290/392/523 instead of a guy who gives 75% and hits 290/392/523 or 243/260/316.

 

What about a guy who gives only 99% and hits 291/393/524? :P

 

Under 100% = NOT ENOUGH HUSTLE. 95%-99% gives you "scrappy" and 90%-94% you end up with "gumption." The next bracket is "spunky," then "moxy," then "heart" and finally "gusto." This is all very scientific and should be taken very seriously.

[10man]

There have been many threads that involved hustling and giving 100% effort and many more threads that wandered into that topic. My question is if major league ballplayers are playing at a level so much higher than "normal" people and many seem to be giving 100% effort, how come their production kicks up an extra 20-30% during their contract year?

 

Evidence that a player's production goes up 20-30% during their contract year?

 

I guess I don't have any hard evidence, but observation seems to point to much better production during a player's contract year. All of a sudden .260 hitters turn into .300 hitters, guys who average 25 HRs hit 35 HRs, and pitchers who win 12 games suddenly become 18 game winners.

I don't think there's a single 25 homer guy out there who wouldn't want to hit 35 every single year.

[wade]

There have been many threads that involved hustling and giving 100% effort and many more threads that wandered into that topic. My question is if major league ballplayers are playing at a level so much higher than "normal" people and many seem to be giving 100% effort, how come their production kicks up an extra 20-30% during their contract year?

 

To take this in another direction, could some players be on PED's during their contract years, as opposed to some who are/ were on them for years at a time?

[CuseCubFan69]

I'd rather have a guy who gives 75% and hits .290/.392/.523 than a scrappy hustler who gives 100% and hits .243/.260/.316.

 

And I'd rather have a scrappy hustler who gives 100% that hits 290/392/523 instead of a guy who gives 75% and hits 290/392/523 or 243/260/316.

 

so you agree that hustling is a peripheral that simply enhances, but isn't necessary?

 

again, hustling no help hit curveball.

 

 

I want all players to give maximum effort at all times, is that really too much to ask?

 

Let me add this too. I think a lot of players study their swings and opposing pitchers and we do not know how much time they do this along with extra cage work and ground balls. Ramirez may be doing this to make himself better and the hustler may be playing cards in the clubhouse but what we see is a guy (hustler) that runs everything out. We may not know all of their work habits but I have to assume the Cubs do. Ramirez is a productive hitters and an adequate fielder and I like him being a Cub and just because I said I'd like him to hustle more doesn't mean I don't appreciate the things he does, it just isn't that black and white to me.

[Outshined_One]

I want all players to give maximum effort at all times, is that really too much to ask?

 

Let me add this too. I think a lot of players study their swings and opposing pitchers and we do not know how much time they do this along with extra cage work and ground balls. Ramirez may be doing this to make himself better and the hustler may be playing cards in the clubhouse but what we see is a guy (hustler) that runs everything out. We may not know all of their work habits but I have to assume the Cubs do. Ramirez is a productive hitters and an adequate fielder and I like him being a Cub and just because I said I'd like him to hustle more doesn't mean I don't appreciate the things he does, it just isn't that black and white to me.

 

I agree with your general point. However, this is something that concerns me and I know this doesn't apply to you in particular. It is relevant to the discussion.

 

I think a number of people place too much emphasis on hustle. I believe it's important to any sport and that all guys need to be motivated and give their all, don't get me wrong. Yet, there are a number of people who gush over the scrappy hustling types despite the fact that these guys are simply not productive, not even if they spent hours studying tapes, spent extra time in the cages, and so on. Guys like Neifi Perez and David Eckstein come to mind. Yes, both probably try their hardest out there, but that doesn't make them good. That does not justify starting them over guys who perhaps do not hustle quite as much, but are much more productive.

 

The same can be said when you go in the other direction, namely with guys like Aramis Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, and so on. From what a number of us see, these guys do not put their all into the game. They don't run out every ground ball. They look disinterested, like their hearts might not be totally into it. People will accuse them of just being there to pick up a paycheck rather than take a leadership role, hit in the clutch, show emotion, or whatever.

 

The fact remains that people will focus so much on hustle that they overlook the fact that these guys are really, really good players. Anybody who would rather have a team full of David Ecksteins rather than a team full of Alex Rodriguezes is simply delusional and kidding themselves. That extra bit of spark would not have helped Alex Rodriguez make contact with a wicked Jeremy Bonderman slider. That extra bit of hustle wouldn't get Aramis Ramirez an extra base on nearly every routine groundout he's ever hit into.

 

I'd hope these guys are putting their all into their jobs, don't get me wrong. But I'd rather not have that desire cloud my judgment regarding reality.

[CuseCubFan69]

I want all players to give maximum effort at all times, is that really too much to ask?

 

Let me add this too. I think a lot of players study their swings and opposing pitchers and we do not know how much time they do this along with extra cage work and ground balls. Ramirez may be doing this to make himself better and the hustler may be playing cards in the clubhouse but what we see is a guy (hustler) that runs everything out. We may not know all of their work habits but I have to assume the Cubs do. Ramirez is a productive hitters and an adequate fielder and I like him being a Cub and just because I said I'd like him to hustle more doesn't mean I don't appreciate the things he does, it just isn't that black and white to me.

 

I agree with your general point. However, this is something that concerns me and I know this doesn't apply to you in particular. It is relevant to the discussion.

 

I think a number of people place too much emphasis on hustle. I believe it's important to any sport and that all guys need to be motivated and give their all, don't get me wrong. Yet, there are a number of people who gush over the scrappy hustling types despite the fact that these guys are simply not productive, not even if they spent hours studying tapes, spent extra time in the cages, and so on. Guys like Neifi Perez and David Eckstein come to mind. Yes, both probably try their hardest out there, but that doesn't make them good. That does not justify starting them over guys who perhaps do not hustle quite as much, but are much more productive.

 

The same can be said when you go in the other direction, namely with guys like Aramis Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, and so on. From what a number of us see, these guys do not put their all into the game. They don't run out every ground ball. They look disinterested, like their hearts might not be totally into it. People will accuse them of just being there to pick up a paycheck rather than take a leadership role, hit in the clutch, show emotion, or whatever.

 

The fact remains that people will focus so much on hustle that they overlook the fact that these guys are really, really good players. Anybody who would rather have a team full of David Ecksteins rather than a team full of Alex Rodriguezes is simply delusional and kidding themselves. That extra bit of spark would not have helped Alex Rodriguez make contact with a wicked Jeremy Bonderman slider. That extra bit of hustle wouldn't get Aramis Ramirez an extra base on nearly every routine groundout he's ever hit into.

 

I'd hope these guys are putting their all into their jobs, don't get me wrong. But I'd rather not have that desire cloud my judgment regarding reality.

 

I think it depends on what your reality is. If you are a manager/GM that wants your 2 guy to be able to bunt and take pitches than that may what you are looking for. Maybe a guy that puts the bat on the ball is what they want. I'm not saying it's right but some Mangers have distinct styles and look for things in players that they lack in the ones they already have starting. You have trade offs in talent and intangables and some managers put a lot of stock into intangables and some don't. No doubt I want ARod at SS and Ramirez at 3rd over Bell and Eckstein, that is a no brainer and if anyone wants different they should be a manager or GM. But, a lot of times it's Bell vs a Batista and that to me is the point I make. Too many in this thread are going to extremes but IMO you have to look at players with closer stats and make the decision from there. I'm all for getting the best players and going from there unlike Hendry who has to find the prototype leadoff guy. If I have this Cubs team and I have a Murton and Pierre, I bat Murton leadoff and Pierre at the 8 spot.

 

Let's look at Pierre. No one can deny his work habit or hustle and I admire those traits. But, I don't like his talent as much as I would like other CF's or lead off hitters. If you give me a guy that has the same ability as Pierre but is a loafer, not a loafer in the fans eyes but a guy that just doesn't put any work into his craft, I'll take Pierre in a second.

 

You can't have 8 all stars on a team with a limited budget.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

No doubt I want ARod at SS and Ramirez at 3rd over Bell and Eckstein, that is a no brainer and if anyone wants different they should be a manager or GM. But, a lot of times it's Bell vs a Batista and that to me is the point I make. Too many in this thread are going to extremes but IMO you have to look at players with closer stats and make the decision from there.

 

That begs the question then, why does this keep coming up when (and only when) we're talking about Aramis?

[UK1679666180]

The main difference is the application process.

 

Why does Cuse and Bruno tend to offer more of an emphasis on hustle than hustle?

 

Because they're involved with coaching and the majority of their time is probably geared towards HS players and players they have a direct result in changing/improving.

 

If the majority of your time is involved with watching major and minor leaguers and is based almost exclusively on production, you'll likely disregard hustle as long as the player produces. This also is changed by the fact, that the impact you'll have on the player is none compared to that of a coach.

 

I'm much more involved with the local amatuer levels than the majors and it impacts my thought process as far as wanting a greater degree of hustle. Another factor might be the stereotypes surrounding "old-school grinder baseball" and how much someone might look forward to that and others who don't particulary care for it as long as the result is the same.

[Outshined_One]

I think it depends on what your reality is. If you are a manager/GM that wants your 2 guy to be able to bunt and take pitches than that may what you are looking for. Maybe a guy that puts the bat on the ball is what they want. I'm not saying it's right but some Mangers have distinct styles and look for things in players that they lack in the ones they already have starting. You have trade offs in talent and intangables and some managers put a lot of stock into intangables and some don't. No doubt I want ARod at SS and Ramirez at 3rd over Bell and Eckstein, that is a no brainer and if anyone wants different they should be a manager or GM. But, a lot of times it's Bell vs a Batista and that to me is the point I make. Too many in this thread are going to extremes but IMO you have to look at players with closer stats and make the decision from there. I'm all for getting the best players and going from there unlike Hendry who has to find the prototype leadoff guy. If I have this Cubs team and I have a Murton and Pierre, I bat Murton leadoff and Pierre at the 8 spot.

 

Let's look at Pierre. No one can deny his work habit or hustle and I admire those traits. But, I don't like his talent as much as I would like other CF's or lead off hitters. If you give me a guy that has the same ability as Pierre but is a loafer, not a loafer in the fans eyes but a guy that just doesn't put any work into his craft, I'll take Pierre in a second.

 

You can't have 8 all stars on a team with a limited budget.

 

I was basically phrasing my response to two general things which have been coming up recently:

 

1) The complete outpouring of people claiming that the Yankees had no fire, hustle, or desire to go out there and win. These people claim that this is the primary reason why the Yankees lost to the Tigers, rather than because the Tigers' rotation and bullpen was worlds better than the Yankees' or something equally reasonable.

 

2) The number of people who have been saying that Jim Hendry shouldn't bother re-signing Aramis Ramirez if he opts out due to Ramirez's character (inability to step up while Lee was down, his nagging injuries, his lack of hustle, etc). Somehow, these people have blinded themselves to the fact that Ramirez has been one of the most productive guys on this team during his time here. Heck, I'm sure plenty of people on this board would take Ramirez over Derrek Lee.

 

In my years of watching baseball, I've seen guys who seem to have tremendous heart, character, and emotion go out there and stink up the joint. I've also seen seemingly lazy, disinterested, despicable, and unemotional players have Hall of Fame careers. Maybe those guys were not getting the most out of their talent; I can't say for sure. The fact of the matter is, those guys are among the all-time greats. Even if they only put 75% of their effort into everything, they still managed to outproduce the scrappy hustlers by incredible amounts.

 

While there are certain situations in which hustle can be the deal-breaker, I think those situations are, on the whole, limited. From what I have seen in MLB, it's rare that you will have two players with comparable tools and production, but differing levels of effort. Most of the time, there's enough of a disparity in talent/production to merit playing one over the other. I don't think hustle is something that should be the primary thing a GM or a manager should look for in a baseball player. I don't think hustle is something that trumps production. This doesn't just apply to All Star and HOF-caliber players; it applies to every level of a team.

 

I just don't think a number of people get that.

[CuseCubFan69]

No doubt I want ARod at SS and Ramirez at 3rd over Bell and Eckstein, that is a no brainer and if anyone wants different they should be a manager or GM. But, a lot of times it's Bell vs a Batista and that to me is the point I make. Too many in this thread are going to extremes but IMO you have to look at players with closer stats and make the decision from there.

 

That begs the question then, why does this keep coming up when (and only when) we're talking about Aramis?

 

Because Ramirez hits too many lazy fly balls.

 

He's a Cubs and what we always see.

[cjbucks]

What do you get when you combine scrappy and hustle??

 

Thats right.................scrapple.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think it depends on what your reality is. If you are a manager/GM that wants your 2 guy to be able to bunt and take pitches than that may what you are looking for. Maybe a guy that puts the bat on the ball is what they want. I'm not saying it's right but some Mangers have distinct styles and look for things in players that they lack in the ones they already have starting. You have trade offs in talent and intangables and some managers put a lot of stock into intangables and some don't. No doubt I want ARod at SS and Ramirez at 3rd over Bell and Eckstein, that is a no brainer and if anyone wants different they should be a manager or GM. But, a lot of times it's Bell vs a Batista and that to me is the point I make. Too many in this thread are going to extremes but IMO you have to look at players with closer stats and make the decision from there. I'm all for getting the best players and going from there unlike Hendry who has to find the prototype leadoff guy. If I have this Cubs team and I have a Murton and Pierre, I bat Murton leadoff and Pierre at the 8 spot.

 

Let's look at Pierre. No one can deny his work habit or hustle and I admire those traits. But, I don't like his talent as much as I would like other CF's or lead off hitters. If you give me a guy that has the same ability as Pierre but is a loafer, not a loafer in the fans eyes but a guy that just doesn't put any work into his craft, I'll take Pierre in a second.

 

You can't have 8 all stars on a team with a limited budget.

 

I was basically phrasing my response to two general things which have been coming up recently:

 

1) The complete outpouring of people claiming that the Yankees had no fire, hustle, or desire to go out there and win. These people claim that this is the primary reason why the Yankees lost to the Tigers, rather than because the Tigers' rotation and bullpen was worlds better than the Yankees' or something equally reasonable.

 

2) The number of people who have been saying that Jim Hendry shouldn't bother re-signing Aramis Ramirez if he opts out due to Ramirez's character (inability to step up while Lee was down, his nagging injuries, his lack of hustle, etc). Somehow, these people have blinded themselves to the fact that Ramirez has been one of the most productive guys on this team during his time here. Heck, I'm sure plenty of people on this board would take Ramirez over Derrek Lee.

 

In my years of watching baseball, I've seen guys who seem to have tremendous heart, character, and emotion go out there and stink up the joint. I've also seen seemingly lazy, disinterested, despicable, and unemotional players have Hall of Fame careers. Maybe those guys were not getting the most out of their talent; I can't say for sure. The fact of the matter is, those guys are among the all-time greats. Even if they only put 75% of their effort into everything, they still managed to outproduce the scrappy hustlers by incredible amounts.

 

While there are certain situations in which hustle can be the deal-breaker, I think those situations are, on the whole, limited. From what I have seen in MLB, it's rare that you will have two players with comparable tools and production, but differing levels of effort. Most of the time, there's enough of a disparity in talent/production to merit playing one over the other. I don't think hustle is something that should be the primary thing a GM or a manager should look for in a baseball player. I don't think hustle is something that trumps production. This doesn't just apply to All Star and HOF-caliber players; it applies to every level of a team.

 

I just don't think a number of people get that.

 

I'm not big into emotion during a baseball game. It's fine as long as you can still maintain focus but if you can't, it hurts your game. I also think it's funny that you continue to make scappy hustlers a 240 hitting type guy that puts up terrible numbers. Rose is a good example of a guy that made the most of his talent and put up good numbers so not all scappy players are below average talent wise.

 

I think GM's look for hustle or players that either know the game or put work into their craft because they don't want a guy that can just hit a little better than average and once that hitting ability goes he has nothing else to offer to the team. When your in a slump what do you offer the team while your in that 3-30? You see, not that's it's entierly right but when Ramirez didn't hit that well when Lee was first out that's what people notice, his hitting. He doesn't bring a lot to the table other than that even though he seemed to still be able to continue fielding well which is a good thing. He's paid to hit and he usually does it quite well but that little slump is what was noticed by many. Is it right? Well, I'd like my 2nd best hitter in the lineup to step up when I lose my best hitter along with the other 7 guys until Lee comes back. Some players like Perez are not capable because of talent unless they go into a freakish hitting streak and if he did, wrong or right most fans would remember that, just like guys that hit or slump in the playoffs.

 

UK gave his definition of what he looks for and I'm sure GM's are on or a little left or right of that spectrum. My point is when you have a guy that knows the game and hustles, as a coach I love it. If he sucks he doesn't play or very little but I love what he brings to the game and you have to understand what some of these guys bring to the table when it comes to the mental stability of the team. Again don't get me wrong, I want talent but some kids/players add something to every team they are on. This is such a mental game and IMO some of these type players break can break a negative train of thought or the routine of a slump and help those superstars we all love to help on the team. These hustlers or what I prefer to call them, baseball players, are not a gamble to have on the team. You know what you have and what results you're going to get. If the criteria is a 240 hitter than he doesn't play that much and is called on in certain situations, but that's how I'd play him unless he is the most talented player for that position.

 

Talented headcases are draining on a coach/manager. You want them to reach their full potential but they don't in most cases because of their work habits. You get a guy, let's say Manny Ramirez, and he's an incredible hitter but very high maintenance at least that we've heard as I don't like to assume since I've never worked with the man. Let's just go with what we've heard just for an example. He hits the heck out of the ball and goes 2-4 with a HR and 2 RBI's but misses a cutoff and lets a flyball drop in front of him and both lead to runs to lose the game 4-3. He's at zero in a plus/minus hockey kind of way. Now, add a little attitude and complaining about his contract. He's productive at the plate no doubt but if these type of things continue has he really helped? You look in the paper and say wow...he went 2-4, that loss wasn't his fault.

[Outshined_One]

I'm not big into emotion during a baseball game. It's fine as long as you can still maintain focus but if you can't, it hurts your game. I also think it's funny that you continue to make scappy hustlers a 240 hitting type guy that puts up terrible numbers. Rose is a good example of a guy that made the most of his talent and put up good numbers so not all scappy players are below average talent wise.

 

I never denied that. There are guys in the HOF who didn't have the terrific talent level of their HOF peers, but still managed to play at a high enough level to be considered among the elite. Now, whether or not you believe these guys were rightly inducted into the HOF is another matter altogether, but guys like Ozzie Smith were still very good players who were helpful to their teams.

 

However, for every Ozzie Smith, there are countless Neifi Perezes, Augie Ojedas, Adam Everetts, and so on. The reason why I equated scrappy hustlers with judy hitters is mostly because most of those judy hitters fall into that scrappy hitter category rather than any other category in baseball, be it big boppers or whatever.

 

Let's just go with what we've heard just for an example. He hits the heck out of the ball and goes 2-4 with a HR and 2 RBI's but misses a cutoff and lets a flyball drop in front of him and both lead to runs to lose the game 4-3. He's at zero in a plus/minus hockey kind of way. Now, add a little attitude and complaining about his contract. He's productive at the plate no doubt but if these type of things continue has he really helped? You look in the paper and say wow...he went 2-4, that loss wasn't his fault.

 

And now we're getting into another area altogether, although you make plenty of valid points between these two quoted parts I agree with in full.

 

I think this particular part of your argument is problematic. You're making it sound as if Manny was the one solely responsible for those two runs because he misplayed two balls. He certainly deserves some criticism for screwing up, but the rest of his team let him down by allowing those two runs to score, be it because other defenders screwed up or because the pitcher threw the hitters bad pitches.

 

Also, that loss would have been significantly worse if Manny were replaced with an average player. Instead of scoring three runs, Boston would in all likelihood and probability have scored two or fewer runs. Yeah, maybe one or two of the opposition's runs wouldn't have scored if they had a league average LF out there instead of Manny, but I go back to my argument regarding the other Red Sox also being responsible for those runners scoring.

 

I think we're arguing over semantics at this point, though. Let's just agree we would rather the Cubs keep Aramis Ramirez, would rather have A-Rod over Eckstein, and agree that generally talent is more important to a team's and a player's success than hustle save for certain situations.

 

Sound cool? 8)

[Guest]

I don't think players can give 100 percent for 162 games flying all over the country twice a week. my preference is players that play hard during the season and train hard in the offseason so they can maximize their ability to perform over the long season. sprinting to first on routine groundballs and after walks doesn't help the team too much in the long run.

[Guest]

However, for every Ozzie Smith, there are countless Neifi Perezes, Augie Ojedas, Adam Everetts, and so on. The reason why I equated scrappy hustlers with judy hitters is mostly because most of those judy hitters fall into that scrappy hitter category rather than any other category in baseball, be it big boppers or whatever.

 

Isn't the greater point that those hustling plays that performed well should be judged on their performance and not their hustle? The entire point is that productive players are better than hustlers. If a player hustles and makes himself productive that great and he should be applauded for it. If a player doesn't hustle as much and is still productive, he should also be applauded. If a player has great talent and crazy desire and hustle, he's michael jordan.

 

 

oh wait, baseball. trying harder doesn't necessarily work.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

However, for every Ozzie Smith, there are countless Neifi Perezes, Augie Ojedas, Adam Everetts, and so on. The reason why I equated scrappy hustlers with judy hitters is mostly because most of those judy hitters fall into that scrappy hitter category rather than any other category in baseball, be it big boppers or whatever.

 

Isn't the greater point that those hustling plays that performed well should be judged on their performance and not their hustle? The entire point is that productive players are better than hustlers. If a player hustles and makes himself productive that great and he should be applauded for it. If a player doesn't hustle as much and is still productive, he should also be applauded. If a player has great talent and crazy desire and hustle, he's michael jordan.

 

 

oh wait, baseball. trying harder doesn't necessarily work.

 

I don't know if you meant to convey this, but to add on, hustle is usually reflected in performance. The guy who runs out every groundball and gets on base an extra time or two, that shows up in measures of production.

[Guest]

However, for every Ozzie Smith, there are countless Neifi Perezes, Augie Ojedas, Adam Everetts, and so on. The reason why I equated scrappy hustlers with judy hitters is mostly because most of those judy hitters fall into that scrappy hitter category rather than any other category in baseball, be it big boppers or whatever.

 

Isn't the greater point that those hustling plays that performed well should be judged on their performance and not their hustle? The entire point is that productive players are better than hustlers. If a player hustles and makes himself productive that great and he should be applauded for it. If a player doesn't hustle as much and is still productive, he should also be applauded. If a player has great talent and crazy desire and hustle, he's michael jordan.

 

 

oh wait, baseball. trying harder doesn't necessarily work.

 

I don't know if you meant to convey this, but to add on, hustle is usually reflected in performance. The guy who runs out every groundball and gets on base an extra time or two, that shows up in measures of production.

 

exactly. and if it helps your teammates that shows up too.

[hardcorecubfan]

Indications from studies that range from the USOC to Einstein and Hawking indicate that man at his best has only used 7 percent of his total mental capability and about 14 percent of his physical ability. (it is debatable) siting Mike Powell's 29+foot jump and Carl Lewis at his peak.

 

so we should be yelling give all 20 percent!!