I wholeheartedly agree that a losing record does a lot for the publicity of "clubhouse cancers". Look at Harper. Papelbon and Harper got into that little scuffle, as we all know, and it's something of an open secret that most baseball fans consider Harper a douche. But Nats fans love him, because he's a fantastic baseball player, and despite a lack of success, the Nats have been competitive and capable of winning for a few seasons now. But if they were to tank badly for a season or two in a row, I'm willing to bet Nats fans would start grumbling about it partially being due to Harper not being a "leader" or "team player". Everything is rosy when a team is winning, no matter what the player's personalities are like in the clubhouse or on their own time. When a team is floundering, the same flaws (ego, lack of respect for the abilities of others, a disinterest in projecting qualities of leadership) that we are prepared to laugh off as the eccentricities of the rich and/or famous suddenly become justification for vilification. It happens in business and even in families. It's human nature, and it's why I always take reports like the "fried chicken and beer" thing with a grain of salt. (Well, not literally. Salt in beer sounds terrible.)