From: lsmith@cs.umn.edu (Lance "Not Here" Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Value of Attitude
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:08:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Little Squids of the Poor

In article <BruJ08.M5o@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.215441.13911@cs.umn.edu> lsmith@cs.umn.edu (Lance "Not Here" Smith) writes:
>>OK, assume that you have to make a trade for one of these players. 
>>(You have a solid outfield and you want to get rid of Dan Gladden.) 
>>How do you know the stuff in the psych column. Where do you get your
>>source of information?
>
>If you are in a position to trade that player then you must be a GM so
>you can talk to the manager and coaches about how that player acts in
>the clubhouse, attitude, willingness to learn etc.

Let me get this straight? You're going to trust the people you're going to
trade with? Branch Rickey would have stole you blind. Why should they 
sour a deal by telling you a player is a head case. And wouldn't the
coaches and managers at Milwaukee told you that Sheffield was a head case
if they were inclined to be honest?

[Getting news from the media.]

>Newspapers arn't the only way to get information.  I listen to a lot of
>radio and TV where you can get live interviews with players and the interviewer
>has a more difficult time making players look worse or better than he is.
>After hearing from players, managers and GMs you can get a better feeling
>on who is a problem in the clubhouse and who isn't.  I will admit that this
>still isn't as good as actually being in the Clubhouse all the time like a
>manager would it is much better than relying on newspapers or totally
>ignoring these intangables.

OK, I should have said media. I still think that's a bad way of doing
things. Some people just come across all wrong when they're put in
front of a microphone or camera. Some people come across well. Steve
Garvey was a great TV spokesperson. What we've learned about him since is 
less than wonderful. How did he work in the clubhouse? I don't know. A lot
of people seemed to think he was tto much of a boy scout, but that's 
another thread.
 
[Basing your opinion on meeting players from opposing teams.]

>I agree.  That player could be totally different on different teams.  The
>reason for this may be that on team A he got along reasonably well with
>all other players, manager, media and fans while on team B he had a problem
>with another player or didn't get along with him too well and he let it
>bother him and affect his play.  I do think that there are some players
>who will always get along with others and never be a problem.

So how do you know whether a player will have an attitude problem 
when he gets to your team? My argument is that you don't. I can guess
that there are some players you can read like a book. (I can't picture
Kirby Puckett becoming a problem.) But for the majority of players, I
have no way of knowing how they will react when plugged into a given team.
That's why I'd argue you really can't go on attitude when picking players.

[Asking players what other players are like.]

>What happened to Sheffield was that in Milwaukee the fans got on his case
>for whatever reason and he let it bother him and it affected his play.  

Actually, Gary Sheffield had problems with fans in El Paso when he was
in the Brewers' farm system. He may have been a problem with the Zephyrs
too. By all accounts he had a track record as a problem. Now, the fans
didn't affect his play when he was in the minors. I don't think this
argument holds.

> Now.
>that he is in San Diego he doesn't have a problem with the fans so now
>he is showing everyone that he is a good Major League player.  If he has
>a poor season next year and the fans get on his case he will probably play
>poor again because it will bother him and affect his play.  The same thing
>happened to Devon White in going from California to Toronto.

So how do you know when a player is the problem and when the situation
he is in is the problem. Perhaps Rickey Henderson would be a decent guy
in the right situation. (Wasn't he the first year back in Oakland?)

[Role of the manager in all of this.]

>How can the manager control personality conflicts between two players or
>control the fans who are booing a player.  He can't.  The better team players
>will not let these problems affect their play.

This isn't true. A good manager can control clubhouse conflicts to some
extent. For example, the manager that is the ogre often acts as a unifying
force with his players. (See the 1967 Red Sox.) By most accounts, Tom 
Kelly did a lot to make Jack Morris fit in with the Twins so Jack was less
of a problem. 

I'm a little confused by your last line. If I have a bunch of good team
players then I can afford to bring in a few problem players because the
rest of the team won't be bothered by it? So why do I have to worry about
attitudes? Assuming I have a good team then I can ignore what the player
is like when I choose between A and B.

>>Plus a winning team often makes the grumpiest of players agreeable.
>
>Yes this is because that player really wants to win and when he or the
>does bad he gets grumpy.  Some players can deal with losing better than
>others.  This is going to happen.  We can't do anything about it, there
>are too many players with too many different personalities but the good
>GMs get the talented players with a good set of intangables as well.

You know, I'm just confused by the word intangibles and the way it is being
used here. Intangible means that it cannot be sensed. That would mean
something like "luck". Don Baylor might be described of having the 
intangible quality for getting himself on three winning teams between
1986 and 1988. It does not mean something like attitude which people
experience. In short, what exactly are intangibles and since we can't
sense them how do we know if a player has a good set or not?

Now I will give you that some GMs might be able to go out and find
nice players for his team. But I think it would be an intangible quality
of the GM if he were able to put together a team that was both agreeable
and won games. McPhail did a good job with the 1991 Twins. He had some
agreeable players and added a problem and won himself a World Series. 
If he had picked up some less difficult player than Jack Morris, I'm not
sure he would have won those games. 
-- 
   Lance "Zeppelin" Smith      | "O hateful error, melancholy's stat!
    (lsmith@cs.umn.edu)        |  Why dost thou show, to the idle thoughts of
 Prove it! Show us your work!  |  Mediots, the things that are not!
    Huh? What's your point?    |                 _Jose Caesar_, V. iii. 67