From: djohnson@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (David Johnson)
Subject: Re: Value of Attitude
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:21:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.010832.24999@cs.umn.edu> lsmith@cs.umn.edu (Lance "Not Here" Smith) writes:
>In article <BruJ08.M5o@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson) writes:

>>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?

I said *to trade* that player not *to trade for* that player.  If you can't
trust your own manager and coaches then why are they your manager and coaches.

>>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.

True.  Some people can handle the camera and microphone well but I still think
that for most players their interview will correctly show their true feelings.
It is much better than second hand information seen in the newspapers.

>[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.

True but if a player was a problem on another team he could be a problem
on any team.  He has proven he can be a problem.  A player who has never
been a problem so far in his career gives you no reason to believe he
would be a problem on your team.  As you said above there are some players
that you wouldn't believe would be a problem.  A player can not be proven
not to be a problem but the ones who have not proven that they can be a problem
are better to trade for.

>>[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.

Comparing the minors to the majors is difficult.  In the minors there are
many fewer fans and much less media coverage.  I understand the point you
are making and if the fans are not the reason for his poor play what is
it?  There must be a reason.  It is either the fans or problems with other
players.  My point is that whatever the problem he let it effect his play.
This makes him less valuable to a team in a trade because if the problem
occurs again whats makes the team think that it won't effect his play again.

>> 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?)

You don't really but I will take a player who has performed well on every
team he has played on and in every year of his career.  This type of player
shows me that he has either A)  never had any problems with fans, media,
managers or other players or B) has never let any problem affect his play.

>[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. 

What you are saying is that the manager can control some of the effects of
personality conflicts but I don't think that a manager can stop conflicts
from occuring.

>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.

Sorta what I am saying.  What I am trying to say that a team can live with
a problem player if his physical abilities out weigh the problems he has.

>>>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?

In this sense intangibles are something which cannot be measured.  We can't
say that a player has an attitude factor of 10 but we can say that he has
a good attitude.  The concept of good and bad attitude is there but it
cannot given a number which is why some people decide to ignore them.  If
you don't like the word intangibles use unmeasurable attributes a player
can bring to a team or something like that.

>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. 

True. because his good performance was better than his problems he may have
caused.

>-- 
>   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           

--David Johnson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball