From: sinhaa@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Anand Sinha)
Subject: Re: Value of Attitude (Re: Value of Stats)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:03:49 GMT

In article <Bs5u06.F77@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson) writes:

>> (George Bell stats deleted)
>
>Or some injury he kept quiet so he could keep playing.  It would have been 
>better that he made the injury (if he had one) public so the fans would
>(maybe) understand why he wasn't playing as good.  I think that the stats
>show that he let the problems with media, fans and manager affect his play.
>If he didn't let it affect his play he would have been more valuable to his
>team.

That (maybe) is important.  Would the fans have accepted him not playing
through injuries?  Look at the fans reaction to Kelly Gruber not playing with
his injuries.  I think the fans would have respected him more for saying that
he was hurt and still playing, than saying he was hurt and then going on the 
DL, especially after he signed a big contract prior to the 1988 season.

Yes, he would have been more valuable had he not let problems affect his play,
luckily though, he is not a machine, but a human being, and problems affect
everyone's performance.  Maybe if the fans had given Bell a little more lee-way,
he'd have played better.  He was still the best player (offensively) on the 
Jays that year...
>
>True.  I will agree with you on this.  Was Bell a team motivator.  I would
>say he probably was.  

Ah, great. :-) We agree on this. :-) :-)
>
>>If the Jays had respected George Bell as a player, the management should have
>>contacted Bell privately about moving to DH, instead of making a public
>>announcement about it.
>
>We don't know that they didn't.  But for this I will assume that they didn't.

My only source for this information is the media coverage.  It seemed by Williams'
and Bell's reactions to the news that this is what happened.  A typical scenario
would be a reporter asking Williams what plans he had for '88 especially
after the (close your eyes Till/Rising/Kirsch) disaster in '87.  The HR which
won the season for the Tigers was one that a good defensive LF could have pulled
back.  Many local media were blaming that HR on Bell.  So Williams probably
responded to the question about plans for '88 by talking about better OF defense
and probably having Bell DH some games to rest his knees.  (I'm giving Williams
some credit by saying *some* games at DH).  The press probably took the two
comments together and misconstrued it.  This, of course, is one fictional
scenario, but it may be close to the truth.

In any event, I concede that the Jays management may have meant to talk to Bell
about it first, but knowing the standards of the Toronto Sun, it was printed 
before Bell got there.  And once it had been printed, it was too late.  (For
those of you not in Toronto/So. Ontario, the Toronto Sun is more like the 
National Enquirer than the New York Times -- IMHO).

>
>>to mean he meant to confront Williams.  So George is in a no-win situation.
>
>He could have done what Winfield did this year.  He could have said "I would
>like to play the outfield, and I still think that I can play the outfield, 
>but if the management thinks it is better for me to DH then I will have to
>accept it."  This would have kept the problem out of the media.  A good team
>player would accept it.", and then show the team that it wasn't a good move in
>spring training.  In spring training he could have shown the team that he can
>still play adequite defense and be the third best defensive outfielder on the
>team.

True. That's what Bell should have done.  But it probably is not in his 
character.  He *appears* to have a fiery temperament, and does not get 
along well the media.  He may have been angry with the situation and did
not think the situation through.  After all, he's not paid to think, he's 
paid to play baseball.
>
>
>Ok.  It is still a little early to tell if he complained or not but I don't
>think he did or will.  Why do you think that he hurts the team?

Joe probably didn't complain..I was only kidding about that.  

As for why I think Joe hurts the team, its because he creates alot of outs 
in the middle of the order, and isn't productive all the time.  And there
are other reasons...
>
>
>No.  I agree with you.  Winfield doesn't refuse to play the outfield because
>he thinks that he can still play adequite defense.  I just don't think that
>a player should challenge a managers decision through the media.

I agree, but sometimes the media takes it upon themselves to create problems.
Unfortunately this has been the case with Bell/Williams and the Blue Jays.
>
>I am not saying he should have respected them as much as I am saying it would
>have been much better if he did.

True, true. But my point is that if they don't respect him, how can he 
respect them?

>
>Well, Cleveland was building for the future and San Diego was filling up holes
>in the lineup at first and short.  In both cases he was traded for good talent
>and I believe for good reasons.  I don't see him as a problem in the clubhouse.

Well, Jack Clark thinks that Carter was a clubhouse problem.  Again a source
that I can't be sure of .. but ... maybe a better source than a newspaper 
though.



Anand Sinha 
Jays #1 -> all the way in '92
Robbie Alomar for MVP 			Jeff Kent for ROTY
Sarah Sinha for MVP 2009 		Sarah Sinha for ROTY 2009
Juan Guzman for Cy Young