If a pizza guy kept delivering pizzas late because he would stop by his girlfriend's place while he was out delivering and the manager said "stop it!" would you say that is a "tough new rule"?

The tough new rule is not "run hard." That was always the rule. The tough new rule is (something like) "if there is ever an instance where you don't run hard, you're benched for the next game." This was not the case before - the rules were CHANGED after the Kansas City game.

This schtick would be much more convincing if you had a better answer to "What should Maddon be doing?" than "I dunno."

I have said in the previous thread, repeatedly, that the carrot is more effective that the stick. Others have put this in more technical language. So bee bloo blah yourself.

Okay, but what step do you take if the positive reinforcement isn't working? In other words, when would benchings become appropriate?

But we never got to this stage, because the first time there was an issue, Upton got benched! Because of the tough new rules with no gray areas! Because Maddon was trying to send a message to all levels of the organisation, right down to rookie ball (his words). Do you see now maybe?

Personally I am fed up with trying to point out the obvious facts of the situation so I will cede the floor to the likes of Russ, robinred and willcarrollsux who are expressing my points more eloquently than I can.

But we never got to this stage, because the first time there was an issue, Upton got benched! Because of the tough new rules with no gray areas! Because Maddon was trying to send a message to all levels of the organisation, right down to rookie ball (his words). Do you see now maybe?

I am not familiar with these particulars, but if there was an instance of inconsistent or arbitrary rule enforcement, that would be a problem in terms of the relationship. When I have trained teachers, I've emphasized that enforcement of rules needs to be consistent, impersonal, and, if need be, explained: We have this rule because...

However there is a burden of proof that Maddon didn't employ those techniques.

I think this is a misconception all of us often have on these issues. We are not debating with some kind of actual power over any of the actors, nor do any of us have access to actually determine what happened. It's more an exercise so that when we do have these situations in our own lives we can perform well. So when we talk about Upton or Maddon, I think it's understood that we all acknowledge that we have no clue what exactly happened.

I know you see lots of kids. You've really never seen one that, despite efforts from everyone around him still turns out bad? Seriously?

Sorry, simple miscommunication. I'm not asking for best efforts. I'm asking whether there's something even higher than a reasonable effort that could get some return. There's always SOME way to reach every kid in an effective way, even if that actually happens only a small portion of the time. In other words, it's the hitters responsibility to try and continue to perfect the craft so that s/he can homer in every at bat. But that doesn't mean that their a failure when they inevitably failure in a large percentage of their ABs.

I generally have a lot of respect for your opinions on these matters, but if you're actually saying a kid can't just be a bad kid (bad being perhaps too general - substitute whatever criteria you wish, lazy in the case of Upton) even when given a number of breaks, then I daresay you're being a bit blind to the failings of the kids.

Thanks for the clarification. "Bad" is too general. As for the others, we all have some combination of those characteristics and whether we fail or succeed is ultimately our responsibility. However, at the same time, if you work in both extremes, you'll find that the ultimate result tends to be extremely context dependent. We know this in baseball and take it into account. The difference between Julian and New Trier is much more than the difference between Oakland and Coors.

You are quick to point out the failings of authority figures and organizations but when a kid goes bad (and kid here is also a pretty poor choice of word; Upton is 24. 24 year olds are adult men) or does bad things it is, sometimes, not the fault of those who have been authority figures in his life. Some people are fu(k ups.

I was merely using "kid" because it was used in the thread. I would not have chose it. I'll leave that debate to RR and others.

I'd argue that any focus on random individuals besides your own responsibility to a peanut gallery is a colossal waste of time, and likely to move into pathological justification of inaction.

I point out the mistakes and transgressions of figures of authority in a public forum because they don't tend to respond to anything other than general public opinion (believe me, I also try talking to them directly) and as elected officials or as heads of organizations they take on all the perks and benefits but also the responsibility of these giant social issues.

I point out the mistakes of the lone individual to the individual. As much as people accuse me of it, I certainly NEVER say to a kid, "Don't worry about being a lazy ####--the system is keeping you down!" In fact, to them, I spend most of my time telling them, "You are right, it's completely unfair and you are persecuted and whining about it will change nothing--it will make it worse. Shrug off the unfairness, and be 4 times as good, and come back and change it later with the power you earn."

(Like, say, the authority figures you seek to blame - why don't they get some benefit of the doubt because of the folks who raised and taught them?).

Because, as I said before, they chose the challenges they face. A kid is not responsible if his block is not properly policed, or his school has no resources. The Police Superintendent or CEO of public schools took on these challenges, and if s/he was not up to the job, they shouldn't have done that. There are moments where one asks, "Why can't these kids be as responsible as I am?" But that's not a fair position. Obviously, we work to teach them to be so, but I'm the one who took the job and it was my responsibility to know that my personal safety and mental health would be tested. Maddon's job is the same. Upton's job is to play ball the best he can and it seems that he is failing at that. Maddon's job is to manage the job site, and if he doesn't do that to a net positive, there's no point in him being there.

Now, that isn't nearly as high a number as some would suggest. But you've seen here a player exhibiting disturbing behavior for a young player. You have assumed that Maddon didn't use any sort of positive managing techniques because Upton continued to show the disturbing behavior. But that gives Upton far too much credit and Maddon far too little. It IS possible that Upton encountered the positive techniques and didn't give a damn. It is possible that Upton has no respect for any authority figure and is a "bad" (read lazy here) kid. It is possible to have someone who can't be managed or taught or raised. To deny this seems incredible to me.

As I said above, anything's possible and to debate things we can never possibly know about either seems pointless. I take the perspective I do because every single generation I know of has had a tendency to blame its problems on the next generation, and shirk its own responsibility while complaining about the responsibility of the younger generation. Maybe that's not the case here, but it certainly is weird to complain about kids' attitudes while they sit in decrepit classrooms with no resources in segregated schools. They didn't choose that--our system and our leaders did.

You clearly have a great deal of faith in the kids you see and I'm glad there is someone like that in their lives. But that doesn't mean everyone of those kids is going to turn out well. Sometimes, a person just doesn't pan out well despite the best efforts of those around them.

Then that's a shared responsibility and I'll learn so that my best efforts are a little better next time. If you really, truly reach a few kids, that's better than average, and each time you try to add a few more, and you never stop striving for 100% even if you'll never make it there.

Again, if you can show me something Maddon did, or didn't do, early on, I'll listen. But to come in in the middle of the story and blame Maddon because you think had he handled the situation differently Upton would be busting his ass is a poor use of logic or a naive belief in everyone's goodness (well, actually, you seem pretty comfortable not believing in Maddon's goodness).

I believe in everyone's non-badness. Human beings are context dependent creatures. Maddon has more responsibility in his role, but Upton has his own share and I would agree that it seems more self-evident that he's not fulfilling his, but they are by no means mutually exclusive.

Thanks. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Eraser-X is dominating this thread!

Maybe he was inspired by Usain Bolt?

Usain Bolt won, while setting the WR.

I have said in the previous thread, repeatedly, that the carrot is more effective that the stick. Others have put this in more technical language.

If "more technical language" means "provided something that, unlike a vague principle, has practical meaning", then, yeah. Someone said that Maddon should tell BJ "good hustle" when he runs one out. I think that's lame for various reasons, but at least it's something. You didn't even provide that level of specificity.

Eraser-X is dominating this thread!

And right as I began a double-post...:P

As far as the other discussion going on, I think others are covering the topic with more insight than I could. I just wanted to point out how central these issues are to the "zero tolerance" policies that plague our society and how there is no existing research to suggest that they are in any way useful.

I certainly NEVER say to a kid, "Don't worry about being a lazy ####--the system is keeping you down!"

I know you don't say that to kids. I am sure you DO say it at the Teachers' Union Meetings. I always did.

I also wonder where Cliff Floyd is.

From News and Notes in the St. Pete Times:

"He's going to get it right. Trust me, he will get it right before I leave here. And you're going to see a different B.J."

It's not like the Rays are in a playoff race.

I'm not entirely sure that this is true. A lot of managers (not all of them) seem to try to project overbearingly authoritative images of themselves.

I'm not saying that Maddon does. I don't know. But your assumption doesn't seem to be entirely warranted.

Having watched Maddon for a few years now, I can confidently say he's completely frou frou when it comes to things like positive reinforcement, and that he's been doing it all along. The publicly benching someone was completely out of line with what his character had been up to that point, which leads me to believe that his efforts at using more subtle shaping techniques weren't really working.

I think it's clear that Upton is just trying to make sure that the Rays don't pick up the options on his contract.

Could someone please clarify for me what options the Rays have on Upton? Upton has three more years of arbitration eligibility left. Doing these kinds of things will only hurt his earning power, since it makes it infinitely less likely that an arbitrator will find in his favor. Also, it's not like the Rays have a whole slew of outfielders waiting in the minors. What was once a system strength is now a weakness. Whether Upton likes it or not, he's going to be a Ray for the next couple years, at least. Upton knows this as well, and I highly doubt he's angling for a trade.

Part of it is just that he's immature, and that he's being petulant because he thinks he's been unfairly singled out by Maddon (his quotes to the press make that part clear). Part of it is also, I believe, that he's built in lack of hustle as a personal defense. In the minors, he would overplay things constantly, leading to 50+ errors a year and some shoddy baserunning, and get ripped for it. So now he underplays. The third part of it is that even when he is trying hard, he doesn't look like he's trying hard. He just has an expressionless face. So he'll have to hustle twice as hard as the other players to get people to believe he's actually hustling. This might be a tough hole for him to dig himself out of.

I thought the best part was when the fans booed him. Lets see if they keep it up tonight.

Appreciate the local insight Brickhaus.

Even moreso, Upton knew nobody was covering second and the ball had skipped through the infield. A winning-attitude ballplayer would be thinking "Hey, if I accelerate through second here, maybe I can get to third."

In fairness, the ball had not "skipped through the infield", and there was a runner on third. Upton erred in not hustling out of the box, not hustling once he saw it was not going to be a home run, not hustling when he rounded first, and not noticing Teixeira trailing him.

I put this in the other thread as well, but this morning Floyd was quoted as saying:

"I think everybody in here will do everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again. It's not in Joe's hands any more. It's in nobody's hands but ours," the 14-year veteran said.

i go on vacation and i come back to this?

"He just jogged to second the way most players jog to first after drawing a walk. That's unforgivable."

No, killing your daughter and drinking her blood is unforgivable. Jogging to second is just a garden-variety ######.

Why does anyone care?

If Upton gets himself 5 more outs a year through sloppy baserunning than he should, well, such is life. Implying he's 'lazy' seem to be somewhat an over-exaggeration considering we're talking about an pretty good young outfielder/hitter who clearly keeps himself in better shape than not only 100% of internet posters, but probably 80-90% of his fellow MLB athletes. Implying he's like some sort of problem child ignores the fact that he has about one bad day at work every two months, which in terms of 'bad attitude' youngsters ain't too bad at all. He could save those 5 outs a year, sure. But so could Jack Cust if he got himself in shape, or Prince Fielder, or Ryan Howard; how many outs a year could Jeff Francoeur save if he could control his 'baseball intelligence' and swing at less bad pitches. Those examples actually have a hint of truth about them, in the sense that perhaps Upton's attitude may be part of what makes him a major-league ballplayer.

Upton does not seem like a model citizen by any stretch of the imagination, but seriously, the level of emotion expended over what is a pretty minor flaw in a player's actual production, and in fact threatens to overshadow his talent, seems a little out of proportion. Apart from 'athlete envy' (i.e. 'If I had his job, I'd give it 100%), why does it make us more angry than any other ballplayer's failing? Because it's avoidable? So is throwing to the wrong base, misjudging the flight of the ball or getting a bad jump, and all of those result in more outs than sloppy baserunning; I'd rather that Upton was good at the former three and bad at the latter one than vice-versa.

Jeff Francoeur save if he could control his 'baseball intelligence' and swing at less bad pitches.

Yeah, and the Braves fans here never express anything but admiration for Frenchy.

It's pretty simple, dugaton. Upton can hustle more and be a better ballplayer in the process, and there's no downside to that decision. He's making himself a less valuable player because of his failure to do something that requires no sacrifice on his part. That decision disappoints many baseball fans.

No, killing your daughter and drinking her blood is unforgivable.

So you're fine & dandy with merely killing your daughter provided the blood ain't drank?

Upton is clearly asking for the stick.

Paging Mr. bunyon. Mr. bunyon to the white courtesy phone.

Upton is responsible for his own actions and his actions speak for themselves. All the relavancy, carrot and stick, and fluke talk thrown out on BTF is beside the point.

Upton is responsible for his own actions and his actions speak for themselves. All the relavancy, carrot and stick, and fluke talk thrown out on BTF is beside the point.

Pretty much everything said at BTF is beside the point. That's why it's fun.

Georgia v Russia

Georgia=Upton -- 99 percent of the blame.

Not really -- Upton isn't running a little dictatorship with US aid and using military force against a breakaway region of primarily Russian ethnicity.

Georgia=Upton -- 99 percent of the blame.

Not really -- Upton isn't running a little dictatorship with US aid and using military force against a breakaway region of primarily Russian ethnicity.

This post convinces me that "loosenuts" is actually one of BTF's more loathsome hard-left posters under a new, less identifiable name. Saakashvili's regime may not be perfect, but it's nowhere near a dictatorship. Please, don't bring your ironically fascist-worshiping left-wing politics into a thread about B.J. Upton. The analogy is both wholly inappropriate and violently inapt. You only reveal your self-discrediting ignorance by trying to make it work.

(For the record, the Ossetians aren't of "primarily Russian ethnicity." They're primarily Iranian in their ethnicity...the Ossetian language is a modern descendant of the ancient tongue of the Alans, which is part of eastern wing of the Iranian family. But let me guess...you oppose the Georgians because McCain spoke up in favor of them and you therefore assumed that the Obamaphile/left-wing view must of course have to be diametrically opposed. Shame on you - eternal shame! - for supporting the sort of Russian imperialism that any good liberal would usually hate on principle, merely because you feel compelled to reflexively oppose yourself to whatever the purportedly "conservative" presidential candidate happens to support. I'm a faint-hearted realist myself, in that I realize that active military intervention in Central Asia is unrealistic and inconsistent with American interests, but good god man I don't let that overwhelm the obvious reality that Russia is the real aggressor here.)

but good god man

Zounds! Stuff and nonsense! ;-

Wrap your tiny little name-calling mind around this, Eso -- I don't give a flip about what McCain OR Obama thinks, and I have no use for imperialism, whether Russian, Georgian or American. And I wasn't the one to first use the analogy -- which I admittedly took to throw a barb in about news coverage of the conflict. My rhetoric was over-the-top, but not close to the crap passing as reportage of it, or Condie Rice lecturing the Russians about illegitimate use of military force.

What pisses me off about this conflict is how the news is ideologically censored around black/white scripts with Georgia=good, Russia=bad. Let's forget about whether Russia was wrong to intervene, what about Georgian military intervention in S. Ossetia and attacks upon the civilian population there? In Georgia proper, political opposition to the current regime is met by closing newspapers and imprisoning opposition leaders.

The Caucuses are very similar to the Balkans -- a lot of ethnic conflict with no side having pure hands. I misspoke by labeling most Ossetians as ethnically Russian, but the popular will of the people align more closely with Russians over Georgians -- most hold Russian citizenship and have the ruble as their currency -- which should tell you something about their treatment at the hands of the Georgians.

Pretty much everything said at BTF is beside the point. That's why it's fun.

Well, and it seems backward to bemoan a conversation moving from esoteric discussions of baseball player motivation to how to interact well with others in a more general situations as being pointless. The original discussion was pointless and fun and the new discussion is absolutely vital and fun.