The Royals hope that comes in part from the influx of players who have been with winners in the past.

“They have been on one of the last teams standing,’’ Hillman said of the new signings. “They know the feeling.’’

Chad Curtis and Luis Sojo eagerly await their phone calls.

AO

I was noting this the other day - the Royals have a ton of marginal ballplayers in their camp. Guys like Willie Bloomquist, Wilson Betemit, Yuniesky Betancourt, Scott Podsednik, Josh Fields, Brian Anderson... these are guys who you bring in to camp to fill the 25th roster spot, but the Royals have a ton of these guys, such that it seems that half their team is going to have marginal talent at best.

Amos Otis probably still plays a better center field than Scott Podsednik...

It's almost no fun snarking on the Royals anymore as they essentially write the snark themselves.

When was the last time it was so clear which team was the worst-run or which team had the worst GM?

The Royals are kind of the baseball equivalent of a software company that gears their product development for Dos 4.0. It's not that the issue is the Royals being old-school, but that they're horrible old-school.

Rick Ankiel, who experienced the postseason as both a starting pitcher and outfielder with St. Louis

Is it really a good idea to talk about Ankiel's postseason pitching experience?

Royals try to recapture past

Brain cancer for Trey Hillman, Alex Gordon and Scott Podsednik?

The Royals hope that comes in part from the influx of players who have been with winners in the past.

Yep, the pieces are finally in place for the push to 70 wins.

It is pretty incredible that players like Ankiel, Fields and Anderson are being held up as examples of achievement & success. These guys are notable in my mind precisely for their failure to capitalize on their promise.

It's not only like a company that tools products towards Dos 4.0, but a company developing products for Dos 4.0 that have already been scrapped & abandoned by other, more successful companies.

When was the last time it was so clear which team was the worst-run or which team had the worst GM?

I'm guessing the St Louis Browns were involved.

I don't know what's sadder - the Royals front office thinking these players will help, or Ringolsby believing them.

When was the last time it was so clear which team was the worst-run or which team had the worst GM?

D-Rays under Chuck LaMar?

When was the last time it was so clear which team was the worst-run or which team had the worst GM?

Royals under Baird.

I'm guessing the St Louis Browns were involved.

More like the Wilmington Quicksteps. I suppose you can go Washington Generals if you expand the conversation beyond baseball. The New York Black Yankees have an argument as well.

D-Rays under Chuck LaMar?

I'd say he was in a pretty heated battle with Baird and the Bonifay/Littlfield regimes for that honor. It's sad, but there was simply a lot more competition in the field earlier in the decade than in this watered-down era we're in for abysmal GMs.

When was the last time it was so clear which team was the worst-run or which team had the worst GM?

D-Rays under Chuck LaMar?

Royals under Baird.

Pirates under Littlefield

LaMar did some things right, he left a situation that was workable, both Moore and Huntington were left with blackholes to work with.

That said, Moore's judgment at the MLB level seems abysmal, so abysmal that his UPSIDE as a GM might be LaMar- he might leave a farm system/talent level to his successor that will be useful to his successor.

Obviously the on field product in KC leaves much to be desired, the questions I have are:
1: Are they drafting well?
2: Are they scouting/signing foreign talent well?
3: Are they developing those players?

I see no evidence for 1, 2 or 3, but certainly others no more about KC's system than I do, but from where I stand, Moore's reign seems like an unmitigated disaster, he may actually leave KC in worse shape for his successor than what Baird left him.

I would actually say that the answers to 1 and 2 would be "yes." They have a pretty decent farm system at this point, and have been investing a lot of money (wisely, imo) both in the draft and IFAs, which was not really the case when Moore arrived.

On #3, well, it's too early to say.

I don't know what's sadder - the Royals front office thinking these players will help, or Ringolsby believing them.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I believe the Royals front office knows these guys are pretty marginal players... this is just corporate happyspeak to placate the media and hopefully induce some suckers to watch the games/buy the merch.

For a few months I thought that Moore knew what the heck he was doing. Then, it seemed that starting last off season Moore completely lost his mind. Maybe he's always been bad and it just took awhile for it to show.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I believe the Royals front office knows these guys are pretty marginal players... this is just corporate happyspeak to placate the media and hopefully induce some suckers to watch the games/buy the merch.

I assume this, too. What else can they do? Put on a cowboy hat and tell the paying customers this is the best RV they will ever own, but not in a good way?

#15 -- yeah, I said back in the day that I didn't see how any GM could turn the Royals around in less than 5 years given the state they were in. And even 5 years would be lucky. Huntington was probably in a slightly better position in that at least he had some decent players on the ML roster (but probably less in the minors so it's a tough call).

And I agree that Moore has established himself as the worst GM at the ML level. But the key questions are the 3 you ask and I don't have answers to them either. If they aren't doing those well (as in better than average), then the Royals remain at least 5 years (or a Huizenga-style FA shopping spree) from being good. If they're doing an average job of developing talent, at least the next guy will have something to work with. If they're doing poorly at those, then we may be in Browns or old-school Phillies territory.

And a nitpick: The Reds traded McRae after 1972, before they were "the big red machine". They were already a damn good team though and McRae hit very well in the 70 and 72 series (after essentially not playing in either NLCS which I assume was due to pitcher matchups). It was another of those awesome trades the Royals of the time made in picking up some other team's "spare" part for nothing -- they got McRae and Wayne Simpson (whose arm had fallen off by then) for Roger Nelson and Richie Scheinblum. McRae is a guy whose career was saved by the DH.

I'd never heard of Scheinblum before -- what a cursed career. From Cleveland to Washington to starting in KC to a bench role in Cincy when he's flipped to the Angels and then 3 teams in one season then done. Three expansion teams and the moribund Indians.

And a weird career. From 22 to 28, he put up a 59 OPS+. He then goes to KC and puts up a 140 in 518 PA. Off to Cincy where he puts up a 87 so flipped to the Angels where he puts up a 148 in 268 PA. Over those 2 seasons, in 858 PA, he put up a 138 OPS+. Then, at age 31, he bounces around Cal, KC and StL and puts up a 27 OPS+. And he's done.

Those have to be the flukiest 850 PA in baseball history. It's like Joey Gathright turning into Tony Gwynn for 1.5 seasons.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I believe the Royals front office knows these guys are pretty marginal players... this is just corporate happyspeak to placate the media and hopefully induce some suckers to watch the games/buy the merch.

It wouldn't be bad if they brough in a bunch of retreads on make good contracts, e.g $500K + incentives, or minor league deals. But they spent real money (and in some cases traded prospects as well) to get these clowns. Just on this year's roster you have:

Farnsworth $4.5. Betancourt $3.4M, Ankiel $2.75M, Kendall $2.25M, Bloomquist $1.7M, Podsednik $1.65M.

That's $16.25M on a group that will give you roughlt replacement level performance. Most of these guys were multi-year deals too.

They could have had basically the same MLB performance this year, and signed ten additional international prospects. Or signed one or two actually useful FAs.

I was noting this the other day - the Royals have a ton of marginal ballplayers in their camp

You obviously haven't been following the Royals for the last decade.


I would actually say that the answers to 1 and 2 would be "yes." They have a pretty decent farm system at this point, and have been investing a lot of money (wisely, imo) both in the draft and IFAs, which was not really the case when Moore arrived.

I'm a bit more mixed. Dayton has been aggressive in the draft - the Royals have been top spenders the last few years. Its not clear they've been wise though. While they've snagged some first round talent in later rounds by offering top dollar (Tim Melville, Will Myers), their first round picks have been pretty disappointing (Mike Moustakas, Eric Hosmer). But they have found a few later round gems that look awfully promising - Mike Montgomery, Danny Duffy (if he comes back), John Lamb, David Lough, Johnny Giovatella.

I think his IFA strategy has been terrific. He's gone for a lot of guys in the second tier that aren't nearly as expensive as the Miguel Sanos of the world. Shin Jin-Ho, Cheslor Cuthbert, Paul Carlixte, and then when they do splurge, its on a much more polished arm in Noel Arguelles.

Now are they developing those players? Hard to say.

Are they still working Farny out as a starter?

Walt, I'd always argued for Cito Gaston or Jim Hickman but they really can't touch Scheinblum. I have a friend who argues for Terry Pendleton's 1991-92 as the longest running fluke.

Are they still working Farny out as a starter?

Ugh. Yes. He will be in the rotation if Meche starts on the DL. I predict Farnsy is released by Memorial Day.

Ugh. Yes. He will be in the rotation if Meche starts on the DL. I predict Farnsy is released by Memorial Day.

That's your classic bad news-good news, I guess.

It wouldn't be bad if they brough in a bunch of retreads on make good contracts, e.g $500K + incentives, or minor league deals. But they spent real money (and in some cases traded prospects as well) to get these clowns. Just on this year's roster you have:

Farnsworth $4.5. Betancourt $3.4M, Ankiel $2.75M, Kendall $2.25M, Bloomquist $1.7M, Podsednik $1.65M.

That's $16.25M on a group that will give you roughlt replacement level performance. Most of these guys were multi-year deals too.

They could have had basically the same MLB performance this year, and signed ten additional international prospects. Or signed one or two actually useful FAs.

Every club has a handful of lemon contracts, and there are payroll budgets that need to be spent. Also, I am convinced the Royals would get an unfriendly visit from Uncle Bud if they just said, \"#### it, we're going with a bunch of kids and a total payroll of $8M." Spend enough to trick dim-witted media types/fans into thinking you're making an effort, keep Bud off your back, and hope some of your prospects turn into players. Not a brilliant strategy, nor do they seem to be executing it brilliantly, but when you're as bad as the Royals have been...

Spend enough to trick dim-witted media types/fans into thinking you're making an effort, keep Bud off your back, and hope some of your prospects turn into players.

Perhaps, but I really think signing Aroldis Chapman and Angel Hechevarria would excite the fanbase more than Rick Ankiel and Scott Podsednik. Even on talk radio people are lamenting how crappy the vets are.

Walt, I'd always argued for Cito Gaston or Jim Hickman but they really can't touch Scheinblum.

Well, Scheinblum repeatedly tore AAA apart. At the time his good ML performances weren't seen as a fluke so much as his bad ones were seen as a flameout.

Those have to be the flukiest 850 PA in baseball history. It's like Joey Gathright turning into Tony Gwynn for 1.5 seasons.

Umm no?
Those 850 PAs are 60% of his career MLB PAs, plus he hit .323/.401/.535 in 2166 AAA PAs

those 500 sucktastic MLB PAs, especially that awful 1969 (.186/.253/.236 in 222 PAs) are what seem to be the real outliers in his stat record.
He looks to me like someone who could hit, but who really crapped out in his first extended MLB looksee. At age 25 in the PCL he hit .304/.373/.479, not impressive for the PCL? That was 1968, the league hit only .254/.319/.365.
At age 26 he completely crapped out on 222 MLB PAs,
At ages 27 & 28 he then hit 337/.424/.576 (league: .266/.338/.387) and .388/.490/.725 (league .267/.342/.394 in the old American Association, before posting a 140 and 136 OPS+s in the majors at age 29 and 30.

He then cliff dived at 31.

He looks like a guy who basically lost a couple years of his prime because he slumped at the wrong time, then lost the end of his career to injury (I presume)

Those have to be the flukiest 850 PA in baseball history. It's like Joey Gathright turning into Tony Gwynn for 1.5 seasons.

To be fair, Scheinblum had become a pretty dominant AAAA hitter over the previous couple seasons, with power. It's not like he was a Gathright-type player -- he just put up Gathright-type numbers over his first few hundred major league at-bats. He sure did fall off the cliff quickly after his breakout, though.

And here's an interesting tidbit o' trivia:

In 1972, Richie Scheinblum became the only Jewish switch-hitter (and 7th switch-hitter total) to bat .300 during a full season.

Those have to be the flukiest 850 PA in baseball history. It's like Joey Gathright turning into Tony Gwynn for 1.5 seasons.

Don't forget fellow Indian Miguel Dilone!

I'm a bit more mixed. Dayton has been aggressive in the draft - the Royals have been top spenders the last few years. Its not clear they've been wise though. While they've snagged some first round talent in later rounds by offering top dollar (Tim Melville, Will Myers), their first round picks have been pretty disappointing (Mike Moustakas, Eric Hosmer). But they have found a few later round gems that look awfully promising - Mike Montgomery, Danny Duffy (if he comes back), John Lamb, David Lough, Johnny Giovatella.

Well I think the actual drafting has been pretty spectacular; MooseTacos and Hosmer were absolutely elite draft talents who demanded big money; the Royals could very easily have passed them over for slot-accepting "safe" picks, a la the Pirates with Moskos or the Nats with Detwiler. But the Royals paid for upside, and that exactly what they needed (and still need) to do. The first round results have been so-so, but the Process™ behind them was quite sound.

The somewhat dreary performances from those two gents to this point speaks more to issue #3: Are the Royals actually developing these talents they are trying to stockpile?

The somewhat dreary performances from those two gents to this point speaks more to issue #3: Are the Royals actually developing these talents they are trying to stockpile?

Well it could point to #3, it could also be that they simply weren't as good as advertised and really were not elite talents- but as you note they were extremely well regarded, even by scouts outside KC- it could be that KC was unlucky- they took who was, by general consensus the best available player when their turn came- but the general consensus just happened to be wrong.

the Royals could very easily have passed them over for slot-accepting "safe" picks, a la the Pirates with Moskos or the Nats with Detwiler.

Boy, Moskos turned out to be a safe pick :-)
My favorite version of the Moskos story goes like this:
DL was given money in his budget to [finally] draft the best available player and actually sign him [just as his successor would be allowed to do in drafting Alvarez], the draft comes, DL realizes that he'll likely get Matt Wieters...

but he can't do it, no way no how, it just wasn't in his constitution to pay an "unproven" player THAT kind of money, he needs an out, he looks for a player he can plausibly call a 1st rounder, one who won't want money, and one who can make an "immediate" impact, IOW a Chad Cordero type player, someone who threw hard, and had one pitch good enough so he could wrack up MLB saves immediately- the player who looked most likely to fit that bill was Moskos, projected to be a 1st rounder (late 1st rounder), future CLOSER.

From the POV of the organization's actual needs and resources Moskos made no sense, none, even if the best case scenario happened and Moskos was the Pirate's closer within a year, then what? Would the Pirates have been more than 1-2 games closer to .500?

From DL's POV it was part of the plan, he saved money, it was still in his budget, he scrimped he saved, he wanted an established MLB starter, he believed he needed a VETERAN anchor for his rotation, he believed that by adding that piece he'd stabilize his rotation, guys like Zach Duke and Snell and Gorzellany would magically become more consistent... he'd have a closer he picked up on the cheap, so he used that saved up money to acquire his anchor, Matt Morris...

KaBoom, EVERYTHING WENT WRONG, at the worst possible time in the worst possible way

DL was desperately trying to goose Pitt's on field performance, even if only temporarily- but he couldn't do it, he didn't know how to do it, he squandered everything he saved...

That was one bad GM.

At some point in the future, Moore is also likely to be desperately seeking a way to add wins to the KC Royals, what kind of moves will he make? Try to make? What kind of moves will he be allowed to make?

At some point in the future, Moore is also likely to be desperately seeking a way to add wins to the KC Royals, what kind of moves will he make? Try to make? What kind of moves will he be allowed to make?

Mike Montgomery and Tim Melville for the bloated corpse of Jeff Franceour.

Ugh. Yes. He will be in the rotation if Meche starts on the DL. I predict Farnsy is released by Memorial Day.

So the "Farns to the rotation" gambit won't have been a total waste of time after all.

Dilone? Speaking of early-80's Cleveland Indians...
I just found out Joe Charboneau went 1-for-1 at age 45 with the Canton Crocodiles, of the Frontier League.

I just found out Joe Charboneau went 1-for-1 at age 45 with the Canton Crocodiles, of the Frontier League.

Clearly, Canton's management wasn't fooled by small sample sizes.

I still think Ankiel was a good signing but it was for the wrong team. He plays a decent outfield with obviously a strong arm, and is all of a year removed from a 119 OPS+ .

He doesn't help the Royals in any meaningful way, but there are teams he could have helped if he's healthy. That seems to me to be a different scenario entirely from guys like Betancourt and Kendall and Bloomquist who are of no help to anyone above AAA at this point.

Speaking of early-80's Cleveland Indians...
I just found out Joe Charboneau went 1-for-1 at age 45

Go Joe Charboneau!

AS I recall one of the stranger things written by early Bill James, was his comment that one could have predicted that Charboneau would be a flash in the pan because he didn't comport himself like an MLB star, he was basically a clown...

It was "strange" for Bill James, at least back then, because unlike most baseball writers he was averse to using perceived character flaws as predictive tools...

Was Joe a should have been star?
He hit .352/.422/.597 in AA, at age 24
he hit .289/.358/.488 in the majors at age 25, never hit a lick ANYWHERE after that- until that 2.000 OPS he put up in Canton at age 45 :-)
I always assumed he was hurt (Wikipedia says he hurt his back).

Anyway, the "Go Joe Charboneau" era was brief, the Indians at that time were mediocre (it was a peak- before that they sucked, they hovered just around .480 to .500 for a couple years* then went back to losing) he was hot, there was song out (which was actually reasonably catchy), he actually hung out with fans, he did stupid things with fans (apparently some while sober too)...

That team had one of my "favorite" players too, Len Barker, 1980-82, 42-30 (on a losing team), pitched a perfect game (and allegedly his grandmother said, "that's nice, try to do better next time"), was seen as an ACE, a #1 starter, he went 19-12 on a woeful Indians team, in fact during his 1980-82 peak he had an ERA+ of 100, those specific woeful Indians were merely mediocre, and they actually hit pretty decently- especially when Barker was pitching...
But he was an "ace" and so a contending team shipep doff some young talent to acquire him during a pennant race, the Braves sent sent Rick Behenna, Brett Butler and Brook Jacoby....
Behnna was useless, but the mid 80s Braves surely could have used Butler and Jacoby

You wouldn't/shouldn't see a trade like that today, because out of 30 MLB GMs, I suspect the overwhelming majority would know that Barker was not an ace- but then again Dayton Moore really seems to have thought that Yuniesky Betancourt was a GOOD MLB shortstop....

AS I recall one of the stranger things written by early Bill James, was his comment that one could have predicted that Charboneau would be a flash in the pan because he didn't comport himself like an MLB star, he was basically a clown...

It was "strange" for Bill James, at least back then, because unlike most baseball writers he was averse to using perceived character flaws as predictive tools...

He gets into this a little in the NBJHBA, on how one might have known the young Ryne Sandberg (quiet, serious) would turn out better than the young Steve Sax (class clown).

He gets into this a little in the NBJHBA, on how one might have known the young Ryne Sandberg (quiet, serious) would turn out better than the young Steve Sax (class clown).

Yes, and he also at one point compared Go Joe with, among others, Mickey Mantle, saying that Go Joe would use his eye socket to open beer bottles, so and so didn't do that, Mickey Mantle didn;t do that...

funny thing was I later read that well, yes, Mantle did do that at least once... The main point was that it was already common knowledge at that point that Mantel had a drinking problem, and that he was capable of less than serious behavior... I thought James was being sarcastic- but he wasn't - he would start more an more writing about perceived character flaws as an explanation for why one guy succeeded and another didn't.

I hated that- it's too subjective, and I didn't start reading James for subjectivity- once you start using "character flaws" to explain things, well where does that go?

Charboneau was allegedly a drunken buffoon, he got hurt, never came back- he never came back because he was drunken buffoon- that injury didn't matter, he was bound to have some issue, and he wouldn't come back because he was a drunken buffoon and wouldn't apply himself

so why bring up Mantle? Because Mantle is the obvious retort- he was a drunk, and he could be a buffoon, and he suffered a serious leg injury early-and he still had HOF career- so James brought up Mantle- so he could peremptorily dismiss that objection- Go Joe did stuff like THIS, Mantle didn't do that exact same thing- see they're nothing alike...

If I want that kind of I can just go read someone's blog :-)

Still the greatest figure in Sabrmetrics, but still his evolution from 1980 to 1990 to 2000 to now has been pretty disheartening? Does this happen to every baseball writer and analyst? Boswell used to be a good writer, so was Gammons... and Bouton, Bouton (not really a writer), read Ball Four, and then read his recent interviews on baseball, any recent interview, if their was one player I would have assumed would NOT turn into a cranky old coot saying, "get off my lawn you damn kids" I would have thought it would be him.

At the time his good ML performances weren't seen as a fluke so much as his bad ones were seen as a flameout.

They will inscribe this sentence on Brad Lidge's tombstone.

More than talent, it’s the team mindset that has to be re-worked

Tracy Ringolsby, everyone. Once and Future Chair of the Ladies' Auxiliary.

Stupid #### that doesn't impact on-field performance is the new market inefficiency.

once you start using "character flaws" to explain things, well where does that go?

James is following a traditional path to wisdom. As you get older, as you get more perspective, you begin to realize that 'character' is actually very important in determining who is going to make a success of their life, or is very important in equipping people to make good decisions. Leo Durocher was a reasonably successful manager, but his character ensured that was as high as he was going to rise. Given more power, he would have made bad decisions.

The problem in translating this to baseball players is that you are only looking at a small part of a life. Sheer baseball talent can overcome character flaws up to a certain age. The number that one uses for that age depends on what the individual has a talent for. For most baseball players, the window for success opens very briefly, relative to life as a whole, and it's easy for all but the truly immature/flawed to get through it fast without character flaws screwing it up. I would bet a player with a mature head on his shoulders will, even over the short span of a baseball playing career, and disregarding some elements of luck, be better value than a player of roughly equivalent talent who is immature. Someone should do a study, though.

Anybody have a link where one can hear the Joe Charboneau song? Can't find it anywhere...

In 1972, Richie Scheinblum became the only Jewish switch-hitter (and 7th switch-hitter total) to bat .300 during a full season.

Wait, Mickey Mantle wasn't Jewish?

Richie Scheinblum was responsible for me learning the word goat. This was when he was with the Angels, a hometown team for me. I guess he had made a key error, and the newspaper headline read, "Scheinblum the goat." I was all, wha? Imagine reading that headline as an 8-year-old or whatever and not having heard that term. I had forgotten that kid feeling of reading a headline in the newspaper and not even beginning to understand what it meant.

And also I love how Ringolsby refers to the Nippon Ham Fighters as the Ham Fighters, which is how I referred to them all through my childhood and beyond, till that disappointing day I learned they were the Fighters, of Nippon Ham, not the Ham Fighters, from Nippon. I still think of them as the Ham Fighters.

And also I love how Ringolsby refers to the Nippon Ham Fighters as the Ham Fighters

Wait, are you saying the Mountain News's style guide was wrong? All the citizens of Rocky will be so disillusioned.

I would bet a player with a mature head on his shoulders will, even over the short span of a baseball playing career, and disregarding some elements of luck, be better value than a player of roughly equivalent talent who is immature. Someone should do a study, though.

While I'm entirely sympathetic to the hypothesis, that's all it is. Get to work on the damn study.

Richie Scheinblum was responsible for me learning the word goat. This was when he was with the Angels, a hometown team for me. I guess he had made a key error, and the newspaper headline read, "Scheinblum the goat." I was all, wha? Imagine reading that headline as an 8-year-old or whatever and not having heard that term.

So, wait, you were eight years old, and you'd never heard the WORD "goat"? Or you'd never heard the TERM "goat" in the sports context?

At one point in 1972, Scheinblum, Piniella, and Otis (I think, it may have been Mayberry) were 1-2-3 in AL batting average. Povich enjoyed it.

They will inscribe this sentence on Brad Lidge's tombstone.

Brad Lidge is merely the closing version of Ollie Perez, juts as there is a "good Ollie" and "bad Ollie" there is a "Great Brad" and an "Awful Brad"

Brett Favre has that. Hero Brett just couldn't hold off Evil Brett for quite long enough. Derek Lowe and Sean Estes had that too. The great thing about Lowe was that it was possible to tell which Derek he was bringing to the ballpark on any given day just by looking at his face; whereas with Lidge, Perez, Estes, most other guys in that mold, you have to wait and watch at least a little bit of their on-field performance first.

I would bet a player with a mature head on his shoulders will, even over the short span of a baseball playing career, and disregarding some elements of luck, be better value than a player of roughly equivalent talent who is immature. Someone should do a study, though.

Dykstra over Beane is one counterexample.

Dykstra over Beane is one counterexample.

I'm sure there are plenty

While I'm entirely sympathetic to the hypothesis, that's all it is. Get to work on the damn study.

how do you study it? who gets to decide who is mature and who isn't?
who is crazy and disturbed and who is eccentric?

Any "study" like this is going to have problems:

Famous psych study:
Researcher decides to study the homeless, who are they, how did they come to be homeless, etc.,
He recruits volunteers to assist in the study, the volunteers are given a questionnaire and directed to go out "in the field" meet the homeless, talk to them and get them to fill out the questionnaires.

Actually, the researcher was studying the volunteers, he had two basic types- 1: religious people who were motivated to perform good deeds as a matter of religious duty; 2: bleeding heart liberal types (ok there was a third group- anyone who didn't identify with the other two groups)

Guess what: when the "religious" volunteers met the homeless and had them answer questions the overwhelming "cause" of homelessness was internal: alcohol and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices and decisions
when the liberal volunteers met and interviewed the homeless, the overwhelming cause of homelessness was external: lost a job, lost a family member, had no family, etc...

The third group came back with all of the above, plus an [un]healthy dose of mental illness (the hardcore religious volunteers and the hardcore liberal volunteers both tended to ignore or downplay the role of mental illness- the researcher speculated that it interfered with each of their worldviews- albeit in different ways)

I thought the point of the Dykstra/Beane parts in Moneyball was that Dykstra lived and breathed baseball, while Beane wasn't sure if he wanted to be a ballplayer at all. That sounds like more evidence for the theory.

I was going to give the Dean brothers as a counterexample. But looking up the Un-Daffy Paul, I learned he had a decent career. Ol' Diz is definitely a clown that made good, though.

Famous psych study:

link/more info? that seems like an interesting thing to read about. Also, it seems as though if the results were that stark, the researcher could have done a better job preparing a script. It does seem obvious that people often (always?) view other people through the lens of their own experience, which means that what is considered rebellious (for example) by one person would be seen as totally unexpected and normal by another. I always think of the dichotomous ways that various groups view cops.

I thought the point of the Dykstra/Beane parts in Moneyball was that Dykstra lived and breathed baseball, while Beane wasn't sure if he wanted to be a ballplayer at all. That sounds like more evidence for the theory.

I thought the idea was that Dykstra was a complete rock head who didn't think, he just "did"
whereas Beane couldn't help but over-analyze every situation before acting