Valentine's Big Mouth

[pedroias laser]

If this wasn't Schilling' date=' some one else would be doing and saying the same stuff bout Bobby V. This has nothing to do with Schill. I told you guys that Bobby V is a good baseball guy, but not a likeable guy. He's a lightning rod-- and I think that he is deliberately a lightning rod. He likes the attention.[/quote']

 

I agree Valentine even with the mets he always loved the spotlight and not to a certain extent i mean he LOVED IT!. I do think it's safe to say though that this is the most talented teamhe has ever managed. The mets in 2000 were talented but not on the scale that

the sox are for this year.

[Elktonnick]

Schill may know something about what makes players go and not go. However there is no denying that Schill's opinion runs contrary to the public comments players have made.

 

While there is the possibility the Schill is talking to players that have a different view from those of players that have commented publicly what purpose does Schill's comments have besides feathering his own nest by proclaiming his inside knowledge. Who does this help? We can't do anything about it one way or the other. So it does not help us a lick. To whatever extent this is about V this is about V as a man. V is not going to change based on some nebulous comments from Schill about what is and what is not working. The Sox hired V for who he is so V is going to toe his bosses line not Schill's and not the players. We castigated Tito for giving the players to much rope which they then used to hang him not more than a few months ago!

 

I don't like some of the things that V has done and is doing mainly with regard to the way he comments in the press and to some smaller degree because of how totally focused he is on this year to the exclusion of everything else. However you could hardly blame him for the latter since the Sox only gave him a two year contract. But to say it is not working without benefit of seeing how this team performs on the field in the regular season is a bit much particularly since what we do have from players, like it or not is exactly the opposite. Even with that we will not be judging V to the exclusion of ownership, upper management, baseball operations and the players themselves.

 

So if we have a reasonable expectation for what the team he has been given is capable of doing then we might ultimately be able to judge whether or not this is working whatever that even means at this point in March for God's sake.

 

As for what he says in the press, he will either live or die by how the team performs and to a certain extent will be held accountable for what he says. One small example is the way V insisted on proclaiming his involvement in sending Iggy down. That sounded stupid and self serving. We know V wanted Iggy and to claim that he suddenly saw something he did not like when Iggy returned to the dugout was ridiculous. The FO wanted Iggy back down and that is where he went. But oh no....not V. He could not tolerate the notion that the press might think this was anybody else's idea or decision.

 

In fact I believe when this is all said and done of the three items we have been watching with reference to the FO and V, I suspect the FO will win on all three counts. V has wanted Bard in the bullpen, Iggy and Larvanway up with the FO holding the opposite view. I suspect when this is done we will have Bard in the rotation and Iggy and Larvanway down. Since this is baseball I believe that is three strikes V.....your out.

 

When I said Schilling's comments were not unexpected, I meant that any time an organization brings in a change agent there will be grumblings in the ranks from those who want a return to the status quo ante. Regardless of whomever the Red Sox hired as their manager, unless it were someone who managed exactly the same way as Tito did, there would be those saying it is not working. Even if they had brought in a Francona clone there would be those who would complain. We can criticize BV or the the FO but none of that changes the fact that anytime an organization makes dramatic changes in its leadership the predictable result will be that some won't like it. I think Lucchino et al as smart businessmen were well aware of that when they decided that change was needed. Another predictable result that is well known is the "Hawthorne Effect" which simply put is the opposite, things improve in the short -run.

 

So in summary I wouldn't make too much of any of this. What matters are the results. We will all see those for ourselves everyday from April until hopefully the end of October.

[example1]

This seems to be one of those threads where most of us agree. Bobby V can be a blowhard who is a bull in a china shop. Schilling is the same way. None of it matters if the team wins. Schilling was very clear to point out that none of the talk about disagreement between V and Ben C matters to the players, who are probably unaware of it.

 

I disagree with Schilling in most things (politically, his choice of video games, etc.,) but I think his general point of view was right.

 

I think it is fair to recognize that Valentine is probably a MUCH better in-game tactician than Francona was, but it is ALSO fair to give credit to Francona for what he did as well as anyone: managing a clubhouse of ego maniacs in a pressure cooker. You can rip on Francona all you want for 2011, but he DID manage a very difficult clubhouse in a very difficult city for a number of years and is widely known to be good at keeping clubhouse issues under wraps.

 

To assume that V's lifetime of experience is beyond learning something new in his Boston experience (like 'there are times to keep my mouth shut') seems a bit naive. He will learn plenty and hopefully adjust as needed.

 

Now, the Sox just need to focus on winning and winning plenty.

 

Also, I like Beckett's comments. That has me optimistic.

[User Name]

Another predictable result that is well known is the "Hawthorne Effect" which simply put is the opposite' date=' things improve in the short -run.[/quote']

 

When the Hawthorne effect comes into play, things improve in both the short and long run.

 

People are simply more productive under supervision, which they lacked with Francona, but will get with BV. The problematic factor here is how much is too much supervision, which is the situation in which it backfires.

 

Funny though, how the initial experiment that uncovered the Hawthorne effect was initially discovered while looking for the effects of higher or lower lighting on the employees of a company in Chicago.

[Elktonnick]

When the Hawthorne effect comes into play, things improve in both the short and long run.

 

People are simply more productive under supervision, which they lacked with Francona, but will get with BV. The problematic factor here is how much is too much supervision, which is the situation in which it backfires.

 

Funny though, how the initial experiment that uncovered the Hawthorne effect was initially discovered while looking for the effects of higher or lower lighting on the employees of a company in Chicago.

 

Actually they don't improve in the long run. In order to achieve long run productivity gains they must be maintained by the adoption of other strategies hence TQM or CQI approaches.

 

In any case, I think the point is being lost. Pro and anti BV folks are trying to make this about Bobby, it isn't. Quite frankly Schilling comments could have been said regardless who was chosen to manage the Red Sox. They would be equally true of the Cardinals or Cubs who have also made significant leadership changes.

[User Name]

Actually they don't improve in the long run. In order to achieve long run productivity gains they must be maintained by the adoption of other strategies hence TQM or CQI approaches.

 

The improvement maintains itself "in the long run" because if the supervision stops, then some of the initial productivity acquired is lost. When you mention TQM you talk about long-term sustained increase, not an initial increase that is sustained on the long-term. This is proved by the effect itself.

 

The gains from a TQM approach should be separated from the gains acquired from the supervision of the employees. TQM focuses on the customer and his expectations, what the Hawthorne effect concentrates in is employee effectiveness. They are not mutually exclusive, but not necessarily intertwined.

[Elktonnick]

The improvement maintains itself "in the long run" because if the supervision stops, then some of the initial productivity acquired is lost. When you mention TQM you talk about long-term sustained increase, not an initial increase that is sustained on the long-term. This is proved by the effect itself.

 

The gains from a TQM approach should be separated from the gains acquired from the supervision of the employees. TQM focuses on the customer and his expectations, what the Hawthorne effect concentrates in is employee effectiveness. They are not mutually exclusive, but not necessarily intertwined.

 

I don't wish to agrue with you on this but the effects noted by Hawthorne diminish over time until productivity returns to normal. We are nationally accreditated in our field by two different accreditation bodies. I deal with Baldridge performance standards, TQM, CQI etc and results based data driven management on a daily basis . And it falls on me if things don't go well here since I run this place. I won't respond further but believe me I know what I am talking about.

[User Name]

I don't wish to agrue with you on this but the effects noted by Hawthorne diminish over time until productivity returns to normal. We are nationally accreditated in our field by two different accreditation bodies. I deal with Baldridge performance standards' date=' TQM, CQI etc and results based data driven management on a daily basis . And it falls on me if things don't go well here since I run this place. I won't respond further but believe me I know what I am talking about.[/quote']

 

You don't want to see my dossier?

 

I'm a supervisor myself for a nationally-recognized entity. I know what i'm talking about as well.

 

We don't need to get farther into it, but suffice it to say that it depends on the type of work and the type of employee it is.

 

You're much more likely to get long-term improvement from entry-level college students and manual labor employees with strict supervision than you will of higher-echelon employees. Things such as data entry, architectural drawings etc etc etc. The more boring the job, and the more aloof the employee, the better your results are going to be.

 

I doubt you have to deal with this type of employee so "high up" (and you do enjoy shoving in others' face that you're a high roller every chance you get). So i understand why you wouldn't really believe in sustained results from controlled supervision.

[Elktonnick]

You don't want to see my dossier?

 

I'm a supervisor myself for a nationally-recognized entity. I know what i'm talking about as well.

 

We don't need to get farther into it, but suffice it to say that it depends on the type of work and the type of employee it is.

 

You're much more likely to get long-term improvement from entry-level college students and manual labor employees with strict supervision than you will of higher-echelon employees. Things such as data entry, architectural drawings etc etc etc. The more boring the job, and the more aloof the employee, the better your results are going to be.

 

I doubt you have to deal with this type of employee so "high up" (and you do enjoy shoving in others' face that you're a high roller every chance you get). So i understand why you wouldn't really believe in sustained results from controlled supervision.

 

Since you always resort to uncalled for personal attacks when you have no idea what you are talking about, to keep peace in the forum and so as not to bore the others, I'll put you back on ignore since I find very little merit in anything you post.

[ibot2much]

 

I doubt you have to deal with this type of employee so "high up" (and you do enjoy shoving in others' face that you're a high roller every chance you get).

 

Totally unnecessary comment

[a700hitter]

U.N. must be a real prick to work for. I've known a lot of tough corporate managers in my career that micromanaged and closely supervised. I worked for a non-tax guy a few years ago that tried that on me. I told him that I wouldn't stand for it from someone who didn't understand my area of expertise, so I invited him to get comfortable with my level of competence by talking to my clients and then to leave me alone. Most people don't have that luxury. He would have loved to fire me, but he couldn't. He respects me for having stood up to him, but he was the type of person that hated losing and anything other than full subjugation is losing for him. Every hard ass manager that I have met in my long career had their careers end prematurely by getting their throats cut, and people loved seeing them get theirs.

[Elktonnick]

U.N. must be a real prick to work for. I've known a lot of tough corporate managers in my career that micromanaged and closely supervised. I worked for a non-tax guy a few years ago that tried that on me. I told him that I wouldn't stand for it from someone who didn't understand my area of expertise' date=' so I invited him to get comfortable with my level of competence by talking to my clients and then to leave me alone. Most people don't have that luxury. He would have loved to fire me, but he couldn't. He respects me for having stood up to him, but he was the type of person that hated losing and anything other than full subjugation is losing for him. Every hard ass manager that I have met in my long career had their careers end prematurely by getting their throats cut, and people loved seeing them get theirs.[/quote']

 

Very true! Typically such "supervisors" are very insecure and never make the cut to higher levels. Most high performance organizations have systems in place to weed them out.

[Spudboy]

Wtf?....

 

http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/2012/04/bobby_v_sports_bars_to_replace.html

[Palodios]

Wtf?....

 

http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/2012/04/bobby_v_sports_bars_to_replace.html

 

Look at the calendar:lol:

[Spudboy]

Look at the calendar:lol:

 

Well f*** me sideways. It certainly never occurred to me that this was not legit.

 

I feel shame.

[User Name]

Since you always resort to uncalled for personal attacks when you have no idea what you are talking about' date=' to keep peace in the forum and so as not to bore the others, I'll put you back on ignore since I find very little merit in anything you post.[/quote']

 

Yay!

 

Totally unnecessary comment

 

From you? lol.

[YAZMAN]

NESN broadcaster Jerry Remy plans to stay on board at Bobby V's as the chourico and chips chef at the two former Jerry Remy's sports bar locations during the offseason

 

AHAHAHA!!!!

 

I actually used to drink at a Bobby V's all the time. In college, I valet parked cars at Milford Jai-Alai. When the performances were over (that's what they called them:dunno:), the whole fronton would empty out and go across the street and close the place.

 

Those were the days, the mid-80's before the casinos, all the NY gamblers would come up and bet big. I'd clear $200 in tips per week easy, live and drink off my tip money, and bank my checks. In the summer, I'd make enough doing carpentry and installing fences to pay my tuition and books for the school year....kids can't do that anymore:thumbdown.

 

[/flashbackmachine]

[User Name]

U.N. must be a real prick to work for. I've known a lot of tough corporate managers in my career that micromanaged and closely supervised. I worked for a non-tax guy a few years ago that tried that on me. I told him that I wouldn't stand for it from someone who didn't understand my area of expertise' date=' so I invited him to get comfortable with my level of competence by talking to my clients and then to leave me alone. Most people don't have that luxury. He would have loved to fire me, but he couldn't. He respects me for having stood up to him, but he was the type of person that hated losing and anything other than full subjugation is losing for him. Every hard ass manager that I have met in my long career had their careers end prematurely by getting their throats cut, and people loved seeing them get theirs.[/quote']

 

This is one of those instances where you show how much of a blowhard you are.

 

To achieve the desired effect, all you need to do is actually supervise the work that is being done. I give my students plenty of latitude and freedom in their work, however, i expect them to keep me up to date on their activities and i do my rounds every so often to keep them on their toes. If you don't know what you're talking about, keep your opinions to yourself. (Tough chance).

 

I hope someone quotes me so you can see this, so your shot-taking from ignore has no effect.

[Spudboy]

This is one of those instances where you show how much of a blowhard you are.

 

To achieve the desired effect, all you need to do is actually supervise the work that is being done. I give my students plenty of latitude and freedom in their work, however, i expect them to keep me up to date on their activities and i do my rounds every so often to keep them on their toes. If you don't know what you're talking about, keep your opinions to yourself. (Tough chance).

 

I hope someone quotes me so you can see this, so your shot-taking from ignore has no effect.

 

[Elktonnick]

I may be a blow hard but at least I know what I am talking about. Just to humor you and to prove the point that you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

 

Here is a brief explanation of the Hawthorne Effect which of course you will disparage.

 

 

The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they know they are being studied,[1][2] not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.

 

The term was coined in 1950 by Henry A. Landsberger[3] when analysing older experiments from 1924-1932 at the Hawthorne Works (a Western Electric factory outside Chicago). Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study to see if its workers would become more productive in higher or lower levels of light. The workers' productivity seemed to improve when changes were made and slumped when the study was concluded. It was suggested that the productivity gain occurred due to the impact of the motivational effect on the workers as a result of the interest being shown in them. Although illumination research of workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect, other changes such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles, and even relocating workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods. Thus the term is used to identify any type of short-lived increase in productivity.[3][4][5]

•^ a b Henry A. Landsberger, Hawthorne Revisited, Ithaca, 1958.

•^ Elton Mayo, Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company, The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilisation, Routledge, 1949.

•^ Bowey, Dr. Angela M.. "MOTIVATION AT WORK: a key issue in remuneration". http://www.remuneration.net/motivation_at_work.htm. Retrieved 22 November 2011.

 

QED:D Have a nice day!!

[User Name]

You're a blowhard who doesn't know what he's talking about. I could quote seventy studies proving the effectiveness of the effect on workers with higher probability of "goofing off", aka students and entry-level, repetitive job employees.

 

This, by the way, is common sense, something someone who claims to know everything should have.

 

And i thought you had me on ignore?

[iortiz]

I may be a blow hard but at least I know what I am talking about. Just to humor you and to prove the point that you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

 

Here is a brief explanation of the Hawthorne Effect which of course you will disparage.

 

 

The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they know they are being studied,[1][2] not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.

 

The term was coined in 1950 by Henry A. Landsberger[3] when analysing older experiments from 1924-1932 at the Hawthorne Works (a Western Electric factory outside Chicago). Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study to see if its workers would become more productive in higher or lower levels of light. The workers' productivity seemed to improve when changes were made and slumped when the study was concluded. It was suggested that the productivity gain occurred due to the impact of the motivational effect on the workers as a result of the interest being shown in them. Although illumination research of workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect, other changes such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles, and even relocating workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods. Thus the term is used to identify any type of short-lived increase in productivity.[3][4][5]

•^ a b Henry A. Landsberger, Hawthorne Revisited, Ithaca, 1958.

•^ Elton Mayo, Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company, The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilisation, Routledge, 1949.

•^ Bowey, Dr. Angela M.. "MOTIVATION AT WORK: a key issue in remuneration". http://www.remuneration.net/motivation_at_work.htm. Retrieved 22 November 2011.

 

QED:D Have a nice day!!

 

Interesting.

[seabeachfred]

AHAHAHA!!!!

 

I actually used to drink at a Bobby V's all the time. In college, I valet parked cars at Milford Jai-Alai. When the performances were over (that's what they called them:dunno:), the whole fronton would empty out and go across the street and close the place.

 

Those were the days, the mid-80's before the casinos, all the NY gamblers would come up and bet big. I'd clear $200 in tips per week easy, live and drink off my tip money, and bank my checks. In the summer, I'd make enough doing carpentry and installing fences to pay my tuition and books for the school year....kids can't do that anymore:thumbdown.

 

[/flashbackmachine]

 

Sounds like you had your head screwed on right back then Yazman and that is why I will surmise that you aren't in any debt to speak of---something today's generation seems to be all amiss about. Of course, today, unless you are of rich parentage you go deep in the red and take years for dig out of it. I can remember back in 1958 when I started college that I had $200,00 in the bank and when I started teaching ten years later after working some and serving my military duty I had close to a thousand. I really think, though, that we may have had it easier.

 

As for our team, wow, two guys down with thumb injuries. I wonder if I should burn incense to the gods of fate so that these two guys can be ready when it counts.

[User Name]

Hey, i'm not in debt. I actually have some minuscule savings. Do i win a prize?

[seabeachfred]

Hey' date=' i'm not in debt. I actually have some minuscule savings. Do i win a prize?[/quote']

 

Two prizes User. One a booby prize for your ascerbic retort to my post, and some kuddos for the fact that you are in the clear. What brought this up was that yesterday in the LA Times as well as today, there were stories lauding people to the hilts for getting out of debts ranging from $50,000 to 250,000 dollars---and these weren't people paying off college debts. Staying at 5-Star hotels, driving the most expensive cars, buying a house out of their price range, well, it made me sick to even read about these people being praised. Guys like you and Yazzman (and yes, even me) should be the ones getting a kuddo or two. There are a lot of us who live by a budget and don't buy things we don't need.

 

Well, hell User, maybe they were Yankee fans. I would expect that from them. Of course, hold on, we're talking about LA. Check that, they must be Dodger fans which means they're not even worth talking about.

[mvp 78]

Living in LA, my wife would wonder how people could afford overpriced imported cars, $750K mortgages, eating out 365 days a year, all while making what we did. It's called being up to your ears in debt. It's definitely a different world over there. It's all for show.

[mvp 78]

From ESPN:

 

"BOSTON -- Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine in a television interview on Sunday questioned the commitment of third baseman Kevin Youkilis, a comment that could potentially strain his relationship with the three-time All-Star.

 

"I don't think he's as physically or emotionally into the game as he has been in the past for some reason,'' said Valentine, speaking in the dugout before Sunday's game and shown on WHDH-TV's SportsXTra. "But [on Saturday] it seemed, you know, he's seeing the ball well, got those two walks, got his on-base percentage up higher than his batting average, which is always a good thing, and he'll move on from there."

 

 

Since Youk was a noted malcontent in the past, (complaining about riding the bus, Ells' injury, etc.) wonder how he'll take this from BV. He couldn't hit much worse, but I just hope this doesn't turn into a powder keg.

[RedSoxRooter]

I hope Youk goes off on Bigmouth's ass. Bobby V only cares about Bobby V and this thread's going to be alive and well for as long as this tool is the manager. I hope the media makes a huge deal out of this.

[Elktonnick]

From ESPN:

 

"BOSTON -- Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine in a television interview on Sunday questioned the commitment of third baseman Kevin Youkilis, a comment that could potentially strain his relationship with the three-time All-Star.

 

"I don't think he's as physically or emotionally into the game as he has been in the past for some reason,'' said Valentine, speaking in the dugout before Sunday's game and shown on WHDH-TV's SportsXTra. "But [on Saturday] it seemed, you know, he's seeing the ball well, got those two walks, got his on-base percentage up higher than his batting average, which is always a good thing, and he'll move on from there."

 

 

Since Youk was a noted malcontent in the past, (complaining about riding the bus, Ells' injury, etc.) wonder how he'll take this from BV. He couldn't hit much worse, but I just hope this doesn't turn into a powder keg.

 

This is very interesting. Remember Jackie Mac rapped Youk as clubhouse poison last year. This was a purpose pitch by BV. Was Youk Schilling's source? Was Youk Holdcer's source? I don't know but I suspect this is payback!

[ibot2much]

I hope Youk goes off on Bigmouth's ass. Bobby V only cares about Bobby V and this thread's going to be alive and well for as long as this tool is the manager. I hope the media makes a huge deal out of this.

 

If the Sox keep winning, nobody is going to care about BV big mouth..and if Youk goes off, he will find himself somewhere in the middle of America in a small market team