S5Dewey

Nothing blurs ethics faster than money.

The difference is that when Dempster drilled ARod, ARod had it coming just for being a douche and everyone including the umpire knew it. I'd expect someone (Kimbrel?) to come inside to Stanton but not with the intention of hitting him.

I need a little help with options. I thought I understood them until this spring but now I'm not so sure. I'm now hearing that Player A has been assigned to Greenville, Player B has been sent down to Portland, and Player C has been OPTIONED to Pawtucket, all of them from Spring Training. Has Player C used up an option year, or is this all terminology that means the same thing and no real options have been used up? And if some players are actually using up an option year what's the criteria that makes Player C's situation different from Players A & B's?

I have yet to see him try to hit a ball to the right side of the field. I don't know if pulling the ball is something he's trying to do more of because he's become "pull happy" or because it's Spring Training and he's tinkering with his swing but IMO it's significant.

I was talking with a Yankees fan today and we agreed that if the Sox and Yankees were playing in different divisions they'd both have a legitimate shot at 100 wins.

Emp makes a great point here though. In order to have a comparison of one "method" against the other one has to have a baseline of significant sample size to compare with. Up until now no manager has tried to pull the lineup out of a hat (I'm using that phrase to indicate placing hitters at random in the order) so there's no data using that as a baseline. Anything attempting to determine an optimum lineup uses player statistics gathered when a manager has tried to tweak the old-fashioned way of developing a lineup. Saying that randomness in a batting order is as good as a structured order is just bad science. It may (or may not) be true but there's no statistical data to support the comparison.

Showalter's a jerk but the home fans love him for it. He's like Belichich, only without the championships. IIRC I only saw two names I recognized in the O's starting lineup yesterday. I was sitting beside a Baltimore fan at the game and he was PISSED!

So... this guy is standing in his kitchen talking with his wife when he gets a series of text messages. "This is Bob next door. I want you to apologize to you. I've been tapping your wife for several months now and I'm sorry. Every time I saw you leave your house ...there I was, doing it again. I'm so ashamed. I hope you can forgive me. I promise that it won't happen again." The guy who got the message walks into his bedroom, opens a drawer, takes out a pistol, loads it and heads back for the kitchen. Just as he points the gun at her he gets another text message. "Not wife. Wi-fi. Damn autocorrect."

There's nothing wrong with it. The problem is with someone who thinks he's a leader but isn't, and doesn't know it.

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.

But did you find what Bogaerts said to be credible?

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 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?

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

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

He gave a "politician's answer". He dodged the question. What I do know is that it's been my experience that when someone gives an evasive answer to a direct question it's because they don't want to lie and yet they don't want to tell the truth.

And that can be said about anything we don't see with our own eyes. We have to take what we've had reported to us and draw our own conclusions. Do you have a different interpretation of what Butter said?

The fact the PD said he was a leader back in July doesn't make him one. I know I related on this board the reluctance of the media people and Brian Butterfield to respond to the question of, "How did 'It's not me, it's them' play in the clubhouse?". The only one to respond was Butterfield which was appropriate because he was the only one of the four people there to have been in the clubhouse. To capsulize Butter's response, it was that Pedey is one of the senior members of the team. He has a well earned reputation for showing up early and working hard and that gets him "a lot of slack in the clubhouse". (That's a part of Butter's statement that I remember verbatim). My interpretation of that is that the clubhouse didn't like it one bit but they're deferring to Pedey's longevity and work ethic and not making a public issue of it - as good team members should do. However, IMO because of that incident the ship of Pedey being a team leader has has long since sailed. The team will respect him for what he does but they won't be trusting him to have their backs, and having his players backs is one of the biggest requirements of a "Team Leader".

IMHO it's hard to predict who a leader might be in 2018. I believe that a leader has to 'earn his stripes' through longevity and a willingness to put him self in the limelight. As much as I personally dislike this phrase, he has to "talk the talk AND walk the walk". He has to earn the respect of the players and then be willing to assume the mantle of "Leader". A few from the fairly recent past: Derek Jeter. As much as I dislike this guy - or rather what I know and see of him - he was the Consummate Yankee. He went on the field, played hard, and took no guff from anyone. And he did it for a long time. He was the face of the Yankees for many years and relished that role. Jason Varitek. He earned the right to be team leader before this, but the day he stuck the glove in ARod's face he essentially said, "f*** you and f*** the Yankees", and the team would have followed him to Hell and back after that if necessary. That's leadership. David Ortiz. He's the guy the younger players went to with questions about anything baseball. He was the leader and he knew it. He's the guy who said on television that "This is our f***ing city!" and it struck a chord with everyone. He's the guy who called a team meeting in the dugout between innings and inspired the team to dig a little deeper. (And I know that some believe that can't happen, but anyway....) That's leadership. I've already posted about Josh Beckett and how I believe he led the team down the right path...and then the wrong one. Right now I don't see anyone on this Red Sox team who's going to do that but I hope I'm wrong and someone does.

How would one go about proving that someone is clutch without using metrics/statistics? Again, I maintain that it can't be proven and I'm good with that. As I said before, I'll continue to believe in clutch and intangibles because my experience has told me that they exist. Some people won't agree, and I don't mind in the least that we don't agree.

Too many questions to answer here!! But here's my take on the last question, and it's maybe my biggest concern. The answer is "Nobody". Someone has to step up and be a leader and if nobody does this team is in trouble. When I think about team leaders I think of guys like Josh Beckett. To other teams his attitude of "To beat this team you have to go through ME!" made him maybe the biggest dick of his time, but we as Sox fans loved it. Arrogant, cocky, brash, all those things that opposing fans hate. And then came "chicken and beer", and the proof that a team leader can lead a team down the right path... or the wrong path. When the team went on the skids he because the de facto leader of the anti-establishment in the clubhouse and the team circled the drain.

OMG that's condescending!!!

It can be defined but my experience here is that my definition gets immediately rejected because it doesn't revolve around metrics. So I don't bother. I've been down that road too many times. People will believe what they believe and when their world revolves around metrics they're not going to be convinced of anything else. I'll continue to believe in things like "clutch" and "intangibles" and they won't, and I'm good with that.

Nope. It's called an "intangible". Why do we have to be able to explain or quantify everything? Do we now ignore the obvious because it can't be explained?

Yep. And I'm guessing that leadership is a quality that can't be explained with metrics. Your results may vary.