A Realistic View at 2018: Part I

[notin]

I can be. Or both situations could be spot-on.

 

Fans are always at the disadvantage here. Most of us are operating with incomplete information and have no real sense of the standard happenings in an MLB clubhouse. Heck, even reporters seem to miss out on that last part, or they like to create controversy where there is none. for evidence, the chicken and beer fiasco was a big deal in the Boston press nd certainly on BDC. But AJ Pierzynski (then with the White Sox) summed it up the best "I've been on three different teams and seen that in all three clubhouses."

 

So why was this apparently common behavior such a big deal in Boston?

[sk7326]

Fans are always at the disadvantage here. Most of us are operating with incomplete information and have no real sense of the standard happenings in an MLB clubhouse. Heck, even reporters seem to miss out on that last part, or they like to create controversy where there is none. for evidence, the chicken and beer fiasco was a big deal in the Boston press nd certainly on BDC. But AJ Pierzynski (then with the White Sox) summed it up the best "I've been on three different teams and seen that in all three clubhouses."

 

So why was this apparently common behavior such a big deal in Boston?

 

If the team is winning, then it is keeping things loose. If the team does not win, it's a lack of discipline. Outcomes color all of it. It's silly but there you go. The good reporting tries a bit harder than using those symbols.

[notin]

If the team is winning, then it is keeping things loose. If the team does not win, it's a lack of discipline. Outcomes color all of it. It's silly but there you go. The good reporting tries a bit harder than using those symbols.

 

Really that is just how the press spins it. Apparently according to the candid Pierzynski, both winning and losing teams behave that way. And no one internal to the game seems to think it was a matter of discipline....

[cp176]

In the Xander Bogaerts article that I just read, he sounds like he gets it. He readily acknowledged that things were definitely up and down in a number of different ways for the team last year. His feeling is that it probably is time for everyone to say goodbye to the past and focus on this year. It is good advise and shows a little leadership.

[S5Dewey]

Fans are always at the disadvantage here. Most of us are operating with incomplete information and have no real sense of the standard happenings in an MLB clubhouse. Heck, even reporters seem to miss out on that last part, or they like to create controversy where there is none. for evidence, the chicken and beer fiasco was a big deal in the Boston press nd certainly on BDC. But AJ Pierzynski (then with the White Sox) summed it up the best "I've been on three different teams and seen that in all three clubhouses."

 

I have little to no faith in what the press posts when it comes to stirring the pot. That's why what I posted came from what I thought was from a better source (Butterfield) than the press - someone who was actually inside the clubhouse, had knowledge of the happenings there, and wasn't trying to create controversy.

 

Probably a mistake, huh?

[notin]

I have little to no faith in what the press posts when it comes to stirring the pot. That's why what I posted came from what I thought was from a better source (Butterfield) than the press - someone who was actually inside the clubhouse, had knowledge of the happenings there, and wasn't trying to create controversy.

 

Probably a mistake, huh?

 

No. The mistake is thinking one answer to one question and getting one perspective from one moment inside a clubhouse gives you anything remotely close to a complete picture.

 

These kind of internal thinking is certainly not limited to you. For some reason, there is a lot of fans posting on various message boards for every team who seem to think they are getting accurate pictures of the workings and needs of MLB clubhouses and whether or not that picture fits into their static ideal of what is needed. Not sure why this is such an obsession.

 

Even in his whole "leadership" discussion. How many people here really know how valuable leadership is in the clubhouse. Just because the Sox had it with Ortiz doesn't mean that's the only way things work. Has every successful team had a leader?

 

It was like this with aces. Everyone said "you need an ace. you can't win without an ace." I would point "the Royals won without an ace" and the resposne was always the same. "That's differnt. They had a great bullpen." That's not different. That was the whole f***ing point - that there were alternatives.

 

So the question now is - is it necessary to have a team leader and how much of a team leader is required? Jut because Team A or Team B had a leader doesn't make it necessary, as there could be alternatives. "Necessary" does mean "every team that won had one."

 

And the answer really is "none of us knows."..

[OH FOY]

Did Cora say we cant keep taking fastballs down the middle, even if its strike one? Bringing in some Astros philosophy, like it, if its true.

[S5Dewey]

No. The mistake is thinking one answer to one question and getting one perspective from one moment inside a clubhouse gives you anything remotely close to a complete picture.

 

These kind of internal thinking is certainly not limited to you. For some reason, there is a lot of fans posting on various message boards for every team who seem to think they are getting accurate pictures of the workings and needs of MLB clubhouses and whether or not that picture fits into their static ideal of what is needed. Not sure why this is such an obsession.

 

Even in his whole "leadership" discussion. How many people here really know how valuable leadership is in the clubhouse. Just because the Sox had it with Ortiz doesn't mean that's the only way things work. Has every successful team had a leader?

 

It was like this with aces. Everyone said "you need an ace. you can't win without an ace." I would point "the Royals won without an ace" and the resposne was always the same. "That's differnt. They had a great bullpen." That's not different. That was the whole f***ing point - that there were alternatives.

 

So the question now is - is it necessary to have a team leader and how much of a team leader is required? Jut because Team A or Team B had a leader doesn't make it necessary, as there could be alternatives. "Necessary" does mean "every team that won had one."

 

And the answer really is "none of us knows."..

 

Much (Most?) of what we post here is nothing but conjecture and opinions based on information we've been given. It's incumbent upon us to consider the source - what they have to gain and lose by what they're saying - and base their credibility on that.

 

Do you find Bogaerts implications (at least I think it was an implication) that there was some dysfunction within the 2017 clubhouse credible? Why...or why not?

[OH FOY]

Bogaerts was too passive, and terrible at Pitch selection last year, needs to improve this. He can hit, its his mind that needs the change.

Like the Sox have 1 batting Coach now.

[Bellhorn04]

Much (Most?) of what we post here is nothing but conjecture and opinions based on information we've been given. It's incumbent upon us to consider the source - what they have to gain and lose by what they're saying - and base their credibility on that.

 

Do you find Bogaerts implications (at least I think it was an implication) that there was some dysfunction within the 2017 clubhouse credible? Why...or why not?

 

If I was going to take a stab at reading between the lines, I'd say that the fact that Farrell was let go after winning the division 2 years in a row kind of points the finger in his direction.

[mvp 78]

Did Cora say we cant keep taking fastballs down the middle, even if its strike one? Bringing in some Astros philosophy, like it, if its true.

 

He mentioned it in his very first conference.

[mvp 78]

Bogaerts was too passive, and terrible at Pitch selection last year, needs to improve this. He can hit, its his mind that needs the change.

Like the Sox have 1 batting Coach now.

 

Xander was also injured for most of the season and should have sat out. He admits to it this year.

[OH FOY]

OK good, expect 25+ HRS, and .300+ average. Lindors numbers or close to it. Edited February 16, 2018 by OH FOY!

[notin]

Much (Most?) of what we post here is nothing but conjecture and opinions based on information we've been given. It's incumbent upon us to consider the source - what they have to gain and lose by what they're saying - and base their credibility on that.

 

Do you find Bogaerts implications (at least I think it was an implication) that there was some dysfunction within the 2017 clubhouse credible? Why...or why not?

 

I wondered how normal or abnormal it was.

 

Maybe it's just me but I imagine any time you get 25 adults and put them in a room, there is going to be some level of discord. So how much is normal and tolerable? Is it a matter of expectations and tolerance? It's the type of thing I find myself unable to really have any perspective on so I don't make issues out of it.

 

And if it was an abnormality, was it really an issue? The team won 93 games and their second straight AL East title, all while being the weakest power-hitting team in the AL by a large amount. At what point does that become a factor?

 

Given that the team was a success, why do you feel this is an issue?

[S5Dewey]

I wondered how normal or abnormal it was.

 

Maybe it's just me but I imagine any time you get 25 adults and put them in a room, there is going to be some level of discord. So how much is normal and tolerable? Is it a matter of expectations and tolerance? It's the type of thing I find myself unable to really have any perspective on so I don't make issues out of it.

 

And if it was an abnormality, was it really an issue? The team won 93 games and their second straight AL East title, all while being the weakest power-hitting team in the AL by a large amount. At what point does that become a factor?

 

Given that the team was a success, why do you feel this is an issue?

 

But did you find what Bogaerts said to be credible?

[notin]

But did you find what Bogaerts said to be credible?

 

Sure. I have no issues with his credibility. For as limited as his quotes were.

 

Do you find it to be significant? How much did it all matter?

[S5Dewey]

Sure. I have no issues with his credibility. For as limited as his quotes were.

 

Do you find it to be significant? How much did it all matter?

 

I find it significant that anyone in that clubhouse thinks it was dysfunctional, and especially anyone who played in almost 150 games.

 

We don't have knowledge of how much it mattered. Maybe it was a good thing and the Sox would have only won 85 games without it. Maybe it was a bad thing and the only thing that kept them from winning the WS.

 

What I've learned is that dysfunction is seldom a good thing.

[notin]

I find it significant that anyone in that clubhouse thinks it was dysfunctional, and especially anyone who played in almost 150 games.

 

We don't have knowledge of how much it mattered. Maybe it was a good thing and the Sox would have only won 85 games without it. Maybe it was a bad thing and the only thing that kept them from winning the WS.

 

What I've learned is that dysfunction is seldom a good thing.

 

 

It doesn't have to be a good thing. It can also be completely irrelevant.

 

The 1978-79 Yankees were reportedly a very dysfunctional bunch yet managed to win two World Series. How important is all this stuff?

[moonslav59]

And is also completely irrelevant in regards to the role.

 

I'm not so sure. If I was a player in a clubhouse of chaos, and the guy who took Machado's side vs own team was up in front of the media claiming he's the "leader", I'd feel pretty deflated and discombobulated. "Is this how things work in Boston," I'd think to myself.

[moonslav59]

Put your best hitter 2nd ... the differences in lineup placement are small, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't grab whatever help you can. But batting 2nd has shown to be the best way to balance getting your best hitter more plate appearances while making sure he also gets plenty of RBI opportunities.

 

Yes. Betts 2nd.

 

Bogey or Beni up 1st.

 

Maybe Nunez, if he hits like he did for us last year.

[moonslav59]

Exactly right. How a person sees himself can have little to do with how he's actually seen by his peers.

 

Yes, and his peers might be rolling their eyes at the phantom leader.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not so sure. If I was a player in a clubhouse of chaos, and the guy who took Machado's side vs own team was up in front of the media claiming he's the "leader", I'd feel pretty deflated and discombobulated. "Is this how things work in Boston," I'd think to myself.

 

'Clubhouse of chaos'? Now you're getting carried away.

[notin]

I'm not so sure. If I was a player in a clubhouse of chaos, and the guy who took Machado's side vs own team was up in front of the media claiming he's the "leader", I'd feel pretty deflated and discombobulated. "Is this how things work in Boston," I'd think to myself.

 

 

I'm sure there is a lot more to all of this than any of us know.

 

If you were evaluating Pedroia as a hitter and he struck out in his first at-bat, would you think "Not MLB material"?

 

If you watched him as a fielder and he booted his first ground ball, would you give up on him thinking "why is this guy even playing?"

 

People are judging his leadership abilities based on one incident, which may or may not even be taken correctly. At what point do the same sample size arguments come in to other criteria? He's been with this team for 11 seasons. Is this the only sample we have? Do we hold leadership and personality to such high criteria that anything that can be taken as poor is more than enough to discredit his abilities and role with the team?

[moonslav59]

'Clubhouse of chaos'? Now you're getting carried away.

 

I was piggy-backing off what someone else posted. (I think he used that phrase- my bad, if he didn't.)

[moonslav59]

I'm sure there is a lot more to all of this than any of us know.

 

If you were evaluating Pedroia as a hitter and he struck out in his first at-bat, would you think "Not MLB material"?

 

If you watched him as a fielder and he booted his first ground ball, would you give up on him thinking "why is this guy even playing?"

 

People are judging his leadership abilities based on one incident, which may or may not even be taken correctly. At what point do the same sample size arguments come in to other criteria? He's been with this team for 11 seasons. Is this the only sample we have? Do we hold leadership and personality to such high criteria that anything that can be taken as poor is more than enough to discredit his abilities and role with the team?

 

I understand us fans know very little about what goes on behind closed doors, but I do think Pedey's statements could have fueled the fire or feelings of discontent among players watching the guy everyone (or many) thinks is the face of the franchise taking credit for being something, maybe he's far from being.

[notin]

I understand us fans know very little about what goes on behind closed doors, but I do think Pedey's statements could have fueled the fire or feelings of discontent among players watching the guy everyone (or many) thinks is the face of the franchise taking credit for being something, maybe he's far from being.

 

Or maybe they saw him assuming the role he has had since he told Valentine to f*** off, and they aren't letting this one little incident mar that image? Or maybe they simply agree with him outright anyway?

 

We have nothing but conjecture about how anyone feels about him and his leadership skills, so one time when people see something they can question, they assume the answers and proclaim him unfit.

 

So again, would you base his hitting one on at-bat? does sample size apply?

 

If you like magnitude, we can go that way to.

 

If I asked you who was the best reliever you ever saw, who would you say?

 

If I then asked you who was the only reliever in MLB history to blow a two run lead in the bottom of the ninth inning of game 7 of the World Series and lose the game, who would you say?

 

Would you agree this was a singular incident yet one with a lot of magnitude? Does it make you change your answer to the first question?

 

My guess is you would name the same relief pitchers both times, assuming you think Mariano Rivera is the answer to the first question. (He is the answer to the second one.)

[moonslav59]

Or maybe they saw him assuming the role he has had since he told Valentine to f*** off, and they aren't letting this one little incident mar that image? Or maybe they simply agree with him outright anyway?

 

We have nothing but conjecture about how anyone feels about him and his leadership skills, so one time when people see something they can question, they assume the answers and proclaim him unfit.

 

So again, would you base his hitting one on at-bat? does sample size apply?

 

If you like magnitude, we can go that way to.

 

If I asked you who was the best reliever you ever saw, who would you say?

 

If I then asked you who was the only reliever in MLB history to blow a two run lead in the bottom of the ninth inning of game 7 of the World Series and lose the game, who would you say?

 

Would you agree this was a singular incident yet one with a lot of magnitude? Does it make you change your answer to the first question?

 

My guess is you would name the same relief pitchers both times, assuming you think Mariano Rivera is the answer to the first question. (He is the answer to the second one.)

 

I get your point. It's all conjecture on our part.

 

Assume (notice I said assume) most players think Pedey is an ass for various reasons based on various happenings. I think those players might (notice, I said might) feel a bit miffed when seeing Pedey procliam to the world, "I'm the leader."

 

I admit, I have no idea how players view Pedey or if it even matters.

 

I'm not usually one to think clubhouse persona matters as much as on the field performance, and I have no issues with Pedey's play, despite the injuries.

[notin]

I get your point. It's all conjecture on our part.

 

Assume (notice I said assume) most players think Pedey is an ass for various reasons based on various happenings. I think those players might (notice, I said might) feel a bit miffed when seeing Pedey procliam to the world, "I'm the leader."

 

I admit, I have no idea how players view Pedey or if it even matters.

 

I'm not usually one to think clubhouse persona matters as much as on the field performance, and I have no issues with Pedey's play, despite the injuries.

 

 

 

I think there is a tendency for fans to insert themselves into these situations too many times and feel they know the answers or need to. There is an entire thread about the Price/Eck incident which was simply two grown men having a disagreement on a plane, something that might happen on 50% of all MLB flights for all we know. Yet somehow a large contingency felt this was a big newsworthy deal and we needed answers and public apologies, etc. And needed them NOW!!

 

On the first page of that thread, you had a post that said "Just let it go. Man, this town is tough. Everyone and everything is under a million microscopes."

 

One of the more accurate assessments of that incident...

[moonslav59]

I think there is a tendency for fans to insert themselves into these situations too many times and feel they know the answers or need to. There is an entire thread about the Price/Eck incident which was simply two grown men having a disagreement on a plane, something that might happen on 50% of all MLB flights for all we know. Yet somehow a large contingency felt this was a big newsworthy deal and we needed answers and public apologies, etc. And needed them NOW!!

 

On the first page of that thread, you had a post that said "Just let it go. Man, this town is tough. Everyone and everything is under a million microscopes."

 

One of the more accurate assessments of that incident...

 

I've never said a bad word about Price on the Eck incident.

 

I agree, it was blown out of proportion.

[notin]

I've never said a bad word about Price on the Eck incident.

 

I agree, it was blown out of proportion.

 

My point exactly...