|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Thursday, October 13, 2011
I don’t think the headline actually makes any sense, but who wants more gossip?? Carl Crawford kept more and more to himself as the season progressed, largely because the clubhouse culture here was unlike any he’d experienced during his decade with Tampa Bay. A consummate pro, Crawford had once grabbed Pat Burrell and thrown him up against a wall, angrily telling Burrell that his unprofessional ways were not accepted in the Rays’ clubhouse. Tampa Bay management had their speedy outfielder’s back, trading Burrell a short time later. That’s the kind of cache Crawford had in that room, and with that organization. But in Boston, Crawford apparently felt he couldn’t exert his influence because he wasn’t one of the veterans who understood what the Sox organization considered acceptable and what had led them to victory. Finally, late in the season but before the team entered its death spiral, Crawford had had enough. He launched into an impassioned speech, imploring teammates to get it together. It fell on deaf ears.
Crawford wasn’t the only newcomer marginalized by the Sox’ toxic culture. The other big offseason acquisition, Adrian Gonzalez, was dumbfounded by the lack of professionalism that surrounded him, and couldn’t believe it was allowed to continue. And while he struggled with a variety of injuries that sapped him of his power, Gonzalez still showed up, still worked, still competed. The same couldn’t be said of some of his new teammates.
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (11 - 12:03am, May 26)Last: The Gurus DO NOT BourbonSamuraiNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (86 - 11:59pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (4 - 11:26pm, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (18 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: Fielder's the first baseman, Felder is the fielderHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (28 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: lieiamSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (20 - 11:24pm, May 25)Last: DanNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (27 - 11:16pm, May 25)Last: baudibNewsblog: TBO: Nerdy Rays head north (17 - 10:07pm, May 25)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Himrich’s Top Ten Target Field Foods (6 - 9:57pm, May 25)Last: Long John McCaine Mutiny on the Bounty (scott)Newsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (6 - 9:42pm, May 25)Last: TR_SullivanNewsblog: Dodgers want to host NHL's Winter Classic (22 - 9:38pm, May 25)Last: Cris ENewsblog: Boston.com: Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios lays off all staff (117 - 9:36pm, May 25)Last: Teufel's GraveyardNewsblog: Greenberg: Cubs' Ricketts decries proposal (817 - 9:08pm, May 25)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (55 - 8:48pm, May 25)Last: SquashHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (14 - 7:33pm, May 25)Last: Kiko Sakata
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. frannyzoo Posted: October 13, 2011 at 12:28 PM (#3961894)I guess it could happen. Sounds like a melodramatic interpretation, though.
I guess it could happen. Sounds like a melodramatic interpretation, though.
Success often breeds complacency.
what, he had a little cubicle where he would stuff teammates that he didn't like?
Further evidence the Red Sox organization plays the game the right way. Those Yankees are a bunch of hollow chested cream-puffs, their fans aren't real fans of baseball.
I had no idea we had a professional athlete amongst our ranks.
Could be an investment banker.
Fixed.
Matt, I'm having a hard time seeing how this paints him as a good guy -- seems to me like the effect is doubling down on whatever the Globe said, whatever his intent was in writing it. "Ellsbury's never really trusted the organization, and he's not especially like in the clubhouse" is what I get from that snippet.
In some ways, but that presentation doesn't do anything to cure the "toxic" clubhouse culture, and the front office & ownership should be uneasy about a factionalized 2012 team, divided between "professionals" & "slackers", Francona fans & foes, those who talked to the press about the mess & those who didn't, and who knows what other camps. I suppose identifying the problem could be the first step toward fixing it, and perhaps everyone takes a new look at their own performance and turns over a new leaf for 2012, but I suspect it's going to be multi-year challenge for the new management team.
Actually, why didn't Jacoby or Dustin, consumate pros, slam Crawford against the wall for his crappy play in first half of the season?
I think the four players mentioned positively are sources for the stories about the clubhouse and they all are treated rather well. Pedroia approaches sainthood in the coverage so I assume he is the main leak.
Fixed.
Yeah, that's probably got a lot more to do with it than anything else. The way Crawford was performing on the field, it was like having a castrato for a voice coach for the Chicago Bears Glee Club.
Not "the unprofessional Burrell went on to poison the Giants' clubhouse, sabotaging their chances at a World Championship?" :)
Also, Pat Burrell was a beloved player on the team that had beaten the Rays in the WS (approximately) sixteen months before. Obviously he was hurt and playing very poorly, and I do hesitate to say that Crawford "could have learned a thing or two", because that is idiotic. But PtB was not exactly Choke McSuck.
Oh Boston you're my home
I'm not sure if you have to be, but you should be, I guess.
No matter how shitty Crawford was playing, he wasn't seen as a loafer, so unprofessional is unprofessional, period.
"Man, I can't believe this clubhouse."
<called strike one>
"It is so unprofessional."
<ball one outside>
"In Tampa, I once grabbed Pat Burrell and threw him against the wall."
<swinging strike two>
"But here, I'm not a veteran who understands what the organization considers acceptable."
<ball two up and in>
"Should I give an impassioned speech to my teammates?"
<called strike three>
"I think I will try giving an impassioned speech. I wonder if it will fall on deaf ears. Anyway, that's strike three. Let me go back to the bench to further ponder this clubhouse situation."
This is well covered territory and it's ironic you brought up Crawford because he's the one who admitted to 'trying to hit HR's every time'. Tito also said "players wouldn't trust each other to come through"
Which is exactly what happened. Batters went up there and ditched the Red Sox approach for their own. Runners made ill-advised steal attempts. They'd get picked off, make mental mistakes...etc..etc..
Tito would chase stats to appease the fragile egos of his fat pampered players..etc...
We're not talking about human "behavior" but performance on a baseball field. Crawford has shown over the course of several years that he can play baseball at a high level despite whatever distractions were going on around him. Now suddenly he can't do it because he doesn't like the clubhouse atmosphere?
A player who is so emotionally fragile that he can't perform under the conditions of a clubhouse circus would have washed out of the game a long time ago and would be selling insurance now, not making $150 million playing baseball. There's a term that applies to baseball players who can't handle pressure: released.
IT'S OVER!
Baseball is not Real Steel.
I am with you to some extent on these issues, but the statement above is, well, overstated. My basic take on "chemistry" is that it is real, but often overblown for the sake of narrative. I think that is definitely the case with the 2011 Red Sox.
I see guys being out of shape as a specific, tangible problem. But you can be in great shape and be an a-hole in the clubhouse (Kobe Bryant, Barry Bonds). Beckett is apparently both out of shape AND an a-hole in the clubhouse.
Your actions and performance are part of your behavior.
Whatever, Ray, I'm not saying that the lunacy of the clubhouse was the sole reason he sucked; but to say that outside physical and emotional conditions always or should always have an insignificant effect on someone's physical performance is not at all reality-based.
The belief as seen in comment #31 is actually that the games are played by superhumans, which is a kind of person. Anyone who would eat fried chicken in the clubhouse during a game or sit on birthday cakes or punch water coolers would have been weeded out in single-A.
I invite you to review Crawford's performance record. He started playing professional baseball right after high school. Might there have been some pressure there, as he had to perform at a young age to rise through the minor leagues and impress his organization enough to promote him through the minors and eventually into the majors? Might there have been some pressure for him to perform well enough in the majors so that he stuck? Might that have been greater pressure than working in a dysfunctional clubhouse atmosphere after signing a contract that set him up for life?
But now, all of a sudden, the pressure of the clubhouse is going to overwhelm him?
It doesn't wash.
He has proven that he can perform at a high level no matter what "disruptions" were occurring around him.
You or I might get nervous if NBC called us up and asked us to do the 6:00 news tonight, and might not be able to perform well. Would Tom Brokaw? No. Professionals either don't feel pressure, or feel it but don't let it affect their performance.
Not overwhelm. How about simply whelm?
Not everything is absolute, no matter how damn much you want the world to be black and white.
No one's saying that Carl Crawford's hideous season was the result of a dysfunctional clubhouse. What people are saying is that's it's ignorant of the way human beings exist to suggest that fractious work environments can't lead to slightly decreased performance from some of the individuals in that environment.
If it wasn't a toxic clubhouse and/or lack of conditioning, what was it? Arnold Rothstein paid them to tank the season? I suppose one can argue that it was just an extreme outlier so unlikely to repeat itself that no effort shold be expended on fixing non-existent problems, but that just seems like inviting more of the same. Don't think Boston is going to do that.
A couple of points:
1. The context is different. To riff on your Brokaw analogy, if Brian Williams and the four back-up anchors all came down with the measles, and NBC had to bring in a local guy who had never anchored nationally, well, maybe he pulls an Albert Brooks sweat-fest as in Broadcast News, even though he is a "professional". OK, that was exaggerated for comedic/dramatic effect in the movie, but this hypothetical guy is probably nervous. Maybe the huge contract numbers and the Boston fishbowl got in Crawford's head some.
2. Like SoSH said, no one is saying "clubhouse issues"="Crawford cratering." It was undoubtedly a combination of things. Not liking the stuff going on around him in the workplace may well have been one of them.
A combination of fluke and injury, unlikely to repeat itself?
If Game 162 had gone differently, nobody would be focusing on this nonsense, and nobody would think there was anything to "fix."
If they want to "fix" the clubhouse, fine, but they shouldn't expect that doing so will affect the outcome on the field in any way, shape, or form.
But now, all of a sudden, the pressure of the clubhouse is going to overwhelm him?
It doesn't wash.
It has nothing to do with "pressure."
If you're getting paid and you see your teammates as a bunch of fat slobs who drink during games -- for which they aren't held accountable -- it's quite easy to see your dedication to the group not being particularly strong. And that in turn could easily dampen your performance.
Real life humans do respond irrationally to disparate treatment in group efforts; the Ultimatum Game experiments prove this conclusively. People prefer zero to something if the something (**) isn't perceived as fair.
(**) The typical experiment is Person A is given $100, but only gets to keep it if they share enough with Person B to get Person B's signoff. Person B's choice is signing off on Person A's offer, or nothing. The aggregate of Persons B take nothing, rather than something, if the something seems unfair.
Where does it say he is an #######? Sort of sounds like guys like hanging out with him in the clubhouse doesn't it?
Kyle Weiland
John Lackey
Tim Wakefield
Look, Ray is taking too simplistic an approach here and I think most (all?) of us can agree that an unpleasant work environment can affect performance but the Sox collapsed because the pitching was a mess. Beckett got hurt and then pitched like a guy rushing back from injury, Lester's September looked a hell of a lot like Lester's May and the rest of the rotation was not exactly Wynn, Lemon and Garcia.
I think the clubhouse issues are part of the problem but they are part, and a small part, of why this team collapsed. This team collapsed because they couldn't pitch and they were losing 3-0 by the second inning every night.
I really feel dumb even entertaining the nonsense put out in that article.
At most, what we can say is that off-field issues may affect a player on the field. But we haven't the foggiest clue how they do so, even if they do so. Newsflash: Players are not robots; they don't all react to the same set of circumstances in the same way. Perhaps a clubhouse circus causes a player to play better; perhaps it causes another player to play worse; perhaps it has no effect. We have no idea, and so claiming that we do have an idea is beyond silly.
What we _can_ say is that nobody has ever been able to show how chemistry issues affect ballplayers. We know what affects the performance of ballpayers. Age does. Injury does. Platoon advantage does. Ballpark does. But with chemistry issues, we don't even have a directional. Will a chemistry issue cause the player play better or worse? We have no clue. A player goes through a divorce. Will he play better? Worse? The same? We don't know.
In the absence of any ability whatsoever to show how an off field issue affected a ballplayer -- and given that we CAN show how things like age and injury affect ballplayers -- it is dumb to claim that we know that Issue A affected Player B in Way C -- let alone how it affected a whole room full of players. Again, players are not robots, and it's silly to treat them that way.
This is all just after-the-fact BS, and thinking people ought not traffic in it.
I think the clubhouse issues are part of the problem but they are part, and a small part, of why this team collapsed. This team collapsed because they couldn't pitch and they were losing 3-0 by the second inning every night.
This is more or less my annoyance with this whole situation. A nasty clubhouse is no fun to be sure. But Boston's real problem was very simple, and very uncomplicated - they had terrible pitchers starting down the stretch. This all smells like schadenfreude and a toxic press pool gleefully sharpening their knives.
All of what you posted above is stuff most of us generally agree with. But it's at odds with the dumbassy stuff you wrote in 28.
None of us know how this stuff works on guys, if at all. We're open to the possibility that the disarray in the clubhouse had some kind of effect on the field, even if we're well aware we'd never be able to quantify it.
But when you approach the issue from the vantage point that it can't possibly have an effect, as youdid in 28, that's when people start wondering if you actually know any human beings.
I will assume this is sarcasm. If it isn't, it depends on how you define a-hole. There are variations in the breed.
This is pretty much what I think.
Sure we do. An individual worker's commitment to the success of the whole is lessened, and thereby his contribution to the success of the whole is reduced. Any normal human being is going to put out more effort for a Band of Brothers than they are a disconnected band, several of whom are lazy slobs pampered by management.
I think your rabid individualism is leading you to a fundamental misunderstanding of actual human motivations.
What is he, European?
Is there any reason why these players decided to turn their backs on Francona? And so far the toxic culture of the clubhouse consists beer drinking/fried chicken and Ellsbury keeping to himself.
If only they had listen to Satchel Paige!
Gus Grissom says hello. This is utter bull. I can cite numerous times in history where professionals who have trained all their life for the conditions they were in, screwed up. See Joseph Hooker at Chancellorsville.
Not sarcastic at all. I was reading assholishness as someone whom others do not want to be around. Like how I imagine John Lackey. Surly, grumpy, pissy, Kevin Youkilisy. But it sounds like Beckett, while obviously a meathead, is at least fun to hang out with. Were the pitchers doing this by themselves? One solitary guy in the clubhouse?
Or McClellan in just about every campaign.
The pitching/defense was broadly speaking 2 runs a game worse than you'd expect in September. Maybe more.
Or McClellan in just about every campaign.
Well, it should be noted that these guys weren't actually trained to fight the war they found themselves in.
Hooker's a classic Peter Principal guy. Sherman had no problem with his being in command of his largest corps (and he'd earned his corps command by doing pretty well at lower levels), but got rid of him when seniority put him in line for an army command. Of course a concussion in his only shot at army command didn't help matters.
Sherman didn't do very well in his first command either. Though exactly how bad it was isn't completely clear -- it's often reported as a nervous breakdown, but he always saw it as a smear job by the press and felt lucky to have been assigned to Grant (who paid no attention to the reports that Sherman was crazy)
The quote "General Grant is a great general. I know him well. He stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk; and now, sir, we stand by each other always." has to be seen in the context that Sherman never thought he was crazy.
Gus Grissom didn't screw up. My understanding is that most think that the parachute pulled on an external part that triggered the hatch. Deke Slayton never believed that Gus screwed up (which is why Gus was assigned to Apollo 1, so he could do both the Apollo shakedown and be in line to fly one of the first two moon missions) and that's good enough for me. Pretty lame that a bunch of engineers' CYA excuse is still being repeated as fact 50 years later.
Look, I really think it all comes down to one thing that is fairly easily explained: Conditioning, or lack thereof.
Got in shape, realized the greatest team on paper actually has to go out and play the games...and then took their lead for granted.*
*The Perfect Storm of Suck also helped....that's not just a Crawford jab.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main