0 comments Advanced Statistics Loses Again to Team Chemistry

I am always amused at articles that say, "There is no way Sabermetrics can say whether a team will have chemistry or not," as if there is a way to measure chemistry and it's only Sabermetrics or advanced statistics that come up short in an attempt to quantify team chemistry. Chemistry can't be measured all, so there is no telling if a team will have it or not until that team plays together. Bob Nightengale writes an article about how chemistry in baseball still matters. It's still real to him, dammit!

As always, there are the "numbers can't measure chemistry!" quotes from players, as if it's news that something which can't be measured can't actually be measured. Chemistry matters, sure, but anyone claiming they know how to create chemistry between players on a team is lying. But yeah, it's only advanced metrics that fall short in measuring how much chemistry a team has. Teams never know if they will have chemistry until practice or games actually start.

In a sport where the desire to quantify every movement only grows with each season, it is a sabermetric aficionado’s worst nightmare.

Sunlight and not being able to use a computer. The worst of all worlds.

You can’t measure it. You can’t define it. You can’t put a number on it.

So it's the worst nightmare of pretty much any coach, GM, or owner because there is no way to know what the result will be. 

We’re talking about clubhouse chemistry, and the culture that can raise a major league team to extraordinary heights without having the biggest payroll or most talent.

How to get it? Nobody fucking knows. What is known is that Sabermetricians can't measure it and that means Sabermetrics are useless. Sure, traditional statistical metrics can't measure it either, but who cares and let's all move on now. 

“It’s really undervalued,’’ St. Louis Cardinals veteran starter John Lackey told USA TODAY Sports, “especially in today’s world with all of the numbers guys.”

It's undervalued because there is no way to tangibly get chemistry and it can't be measured by any metric. So there is no way to value chemistry, hence it is undervalued. It's like anyone who enjoys working with the people they work with. It's not undervalued to enjoy the people you work with, but it's something that either happens or doesn't when working with a group of people. You can hire individuals who you think will fit in, but you never know for sure if a new hire will like his/her co-workers. This is as opposed to knowing when you hire someone who has a Masters Degree in Accounting, it's a safe assumption that he/she does actually know something tangible about Accounting that could help the organization. 

We can put all kinds of numbers on players’ talent, from RBI to WAR, to ERA to FIP, but when it comes to the heart and soul of a clubhouse, there remains no measuring stick.

Because there can't be. Chemistry is intangible. Assigning specific importance to chemistry is fine, but emphasizing how statistics can't measure it is shockingly obvious. Hustle and grit can't be measured either, which pleases many old-school sportswriters and professional athletes when they prepare to write a column about a gritty, white player whose heart is bigger than his talent level.

“The numbers guys can’t quantify that one,’’ Lackey said, “so they don’t want to believe in it.’’

Okay Piggy, nobody said those who used advanced statistics don't want to believe in chemistry. In fact, Alex Anthopoulos is a noted user of advanced statistics and he is quoted in this article many times about the importance of chemistry. So you know, John Lackey should probably focus a little bit more on pitching and a little bit less on trying to believe he understands the position of Sabermetricians regarding team chemistry. 

You want to know what chemistry and culture is about, peek inside the San Francisco Giants’ clubhouse. They’ve won three of the last five World Series. Maybe they’ve had the best manager in Bruce Bochy, and GM too in Brian Sabean, but never have they had the best talent.

The team with the most talent doesn't always win the World Series, but attributing the difference in the team with the most perceived talent and teams with lesser perceived talent simply to chemistry is probably an oversimplification.  

“Come on, how to do you put a number on a guy like (Chicago Cubs backup catcher David Ross) and what he brings to the clubhouse? This guy hit (.184) last year, and he got multiple two-years deals on the table. Why is that?’’

Because he's a veteran clubhouse presence who has experience working with pitching staffs and he isn't going to be expensive. 

Indeed, you step into the Cubs’ clubhouse these days, and no one is talking about Ross’ .186 batting average and seven RBI. They’re too busy raving about his powerful influence on a club featuring four rookies in the everyday lineup.

David Ross does more for team chemistry than the Cubs starting catcher, yet David Ross isn't the starting catcher. Why is that? Oh wait, that's right. This discussion of chemistry is supposed to entirely ignore talent. Ross had less than 400 at-bats over the last three years (as of the time this column was written), since he's so valuable in the clubhouse, then why do you suppose he's not in the starting lineup everyday? Probably because catchers with greater talent are getting the majority of the at-bats.

Chemistry is important. Absolutely. John Lackey should also realize that David Ross doesn't need to be on the field to help his team, while those players who do have skills that can be quantified are the ones getting the majority of the at-bats. So the whole "they can't quantify chemistry" argument has merit as long as those players whose contribution can be quantified aren't having their substantial impact on the team's success ignored.

“He means so much to every single person in here,’’ Cubs first baseman Anthony Rizzo said.

Go ahead, try to put a number on that.

$2.5 million this year. That's his salary. That's the number on how much his contribution means to the Cubs. 

If you go by the numbers, the Royals were supposed to win just 72 games this year, according to Baseball Prospectus’ projection system, PECOTA. 

PECOTA is wrong again this year. They had the Royals at 80-82. Though it's important to know the Royals play in the only division in the majors where only one team has a positive run differential (the Royals), so there is a case to be made that the Royals are going to beat the PECOTA projections handily, but they are also in a weak division. It doesn't take anything away from them, but these are "projections" not "certainties based on data and information that is never wrong."

The Cardinals, who have had more injuries to key players than any team, shouldn’t be leading their division, let alone be on pace to eclipse 100 victories, if you go strictly by sheer talent.

I would completely and utterly disagree. The Cardinals, even prior to the season had one of the strongest and deepest pitching staffs in the majors. It is discussed at length how the Cardinals have great minor league depth (THE CARDINALS WAY!) and when injuries occur they can survive them easier than most MLB teams. If a person is going to be so ridiculous as to look to individual talent on a baseball team rather than the depth of talent on a team's roster, then obviously a team with few players who have a high level of individual talent would be misjudged. Teams should not be judged by sheer talent on the roster though. Teams should be judged by talent at each spot on the roster and the depth of that talent on the roster. The Cardinals have talent at each spot on the roster and they have depth. Going by sheer talent is a dumb way to evaluate a team in the first place. 

“People that don’t understand what team chemistry means don’t work in baseball,’’ Toronto Blue Jays ace David Price said.

Right, everyone knows a team needs good chemistry to help them be successful. A team also needs talent. Teams that win titles have both. To indicate advanced statistics are useless because it can't measure a team's chemistry is to make it an "either/or" argument and entirely miss the point. I don't expect much else from baseball players though. They are traditionally stuck in the past and not open to new ideas. 

“You look at the Giants, and they’re not more talented than everyone else every year, but they’re so close, and together. The Cardinals are the same way. They definitely have talent, but they’re no more talented than a lot of the teams they’re beating every day.

I would absolutely disagree with this. How come the Giants' team chemistry doesn't allow them to win the World Series during odd-numbered years? Does the team just forget about their chemistry in those years or something?

And as I stated before, it has been discussed at-length in multiple publications how the Cardinals have great organizational depth, so I would argue they are more talented than the teams they are beating every day.

“The Cardinals are unbelievable. They lose their ace (Adam Wainwright). They lose their No. 3 and No. 4 hitters in (Matt) Adams and (Matt Holliday). And they’re still winning. They’re just unreal.

Again, the Cardinals were very deep in the starting rotation prior to the start of the season. There is a reason they could afford to trade Shelby Miller. The media always wants it both ways. They want to talk about how great the Cardinals are at producing players through their minor league system, while also claiming the team has lesser talent than other teams. 

The Blue Jays placed more emphasis on a player’s character than any time in GM Alex Anthopoulos’ tenure. He shipped out the guy who didn’t fit in. He chose character over talent. There’s a reason why 42-year-old LaTroy Hawkins is now in the Blue Jays’ bullpen instead of Jonathan Papelbon.

Well yeah, nobody likes Jonathan Papelbon. I do like how Nightengale is using Anthopoulos as the example of a GM who loves chemistry, since he is a GM who has in the past emphasized Sabermetrics. It's almost like a team has to have talent AND chemistry. That couldn't be true though. 

“We really, really, emphasized that,’’ Anthopoulos said, “more than we ever have.

Yes, they went against having talent for chemistry by trading for Josh Donaldson, Troy Tulowitzki and David Price. What rebels they are to favor chemistry over talent in these cases. They traded for one of the best players at shortstop, third base and pitcher for the chemistry it gave the team, while blatantly ignoring whether these guys are talented or not.

“Every team goes through ups and downs, and I think with a better clubhouse and with better character, that allows you to handle the downs a lot. That’s the separator. So rather than the floor caving in on you, you stay afloat.

“We’ll find out if it works.’’

Obviously you can't throw a team together that hates each other or won't complement each other. That much is obvious. Winning creates chemistry and so figuring out how a team can win (find some talented players is always a good start) is important too. 

Certainly, adding a guy like Price at the trade deadline, and having MVP favorite Josh Donaldson the entire season, may have something to do with the Blue Jays’ success, too.

Nah, I'm sure the fact they are two of the best at their position in terms of skill level has nothing to do with the Blue Jays' success. 

Yet, manager John Gibbons can’t stop raving about Donaldson’s leadership skills, and Price is revered throughout the game.

What helps Donaldson be a leader? The fact he's also a really good baseball player. Players who are good at baseball can naturally set a good example for the rest of the team to follow. 

“We were looking for a special type of player, even if it meant passing on some talent,’’ Anthopoulos said, “making sure every player we acquired fit.

“I think it’s important David Price fit into in the clubhouse, but let’s don’t forget he’s got a (2.40) ERA, too.’’

Irrelevant. Don't try to measure David Price's chemistry by putting it in terms of his ERA. 

Sure, you’ve got to have talent to win, but talent alone doesn’t guarantee a thing. If the standings were based strictly on talent, you think the Washington Nationals would be trailing the New York Mets by five games?

If the Nationals had the hitting that the Blue Jays have, do you think they would be trailing the Mets by five games? The Blue Jays have scored more than 150 more runs than the Nationals. But I'm sure that's all chemistry-based run scoring. 

“If you have good clubhouse chemistry, you going to win,’’ New York Yankees veteran starter CC Sabathia said. “It’s not something you can fake. It’s real.

“You look at the Giants. Those guys love each other, and they win. They get a guy like Peavy. You see what (Tim) Hudson has meant for them. It’s the real thing.’’

I would have to again ask why the Giants can't seem to win the World Series during odd numbered years with a roster that doesn't change dramatically. Is their chemistry just forgotten during certain years? 

Sure, numbers are fine for fantasy leagues, but if you want to truly define a player’s value, or recognize the importance significance of clubhouse culture, it’s time to wake up and embrace character, too.

I think most people recognize the value of character and embrace this value. The fact statistics are used to evaluate players doesn't mean clubhouse culture is ignored.

“I think we’re losing part of our game because so many of these people in charge don’t have the scouting background or playing background,’’ Peavy said.

One minute David Price says people who don't understand how chemistry works don't work in baseball and the next minute Jake Peavy says there are some who work in baseball who don't understand chemistry. By the way, the Giants use analytics. I wouldn't be surprised if Jake Peavy didn't know this and just thought the Giants had hired nerds so there would be someone around to give a swirlie to, because giving swirlies to nerds is a well-known way to help a team's chemistry.

“You can have all of the education you want, and break down every number you want, but unless you get to know what’s inside a player, you really don’t know the player.’’

Yes, probably. But when scouting high school or college baseball players it is nearly impossible to know how their personality will fit into that MLB team's personality and clubhouse culture 2-6 years from now. What is possible to project is that player's talent. It doesn't mean talent is the end-all, but it does explain why players aren't drafted based on chemistry instead of perceived talent. 

The Royals certainly noticed the tepid external expectations. Public relations director Mike Swanson, in his recent pre-game notes, reminded everyone of Baseball Prospectus’ projected 72-90 record.

“Fortunately, games are won on a field and not on paper,’’ Swanson wrote in the Royals’ notes distributed to the media, “thus a computer ‘time out’ might be appropriate for some.”

Hilarious. Swanson may be forgetting the Royals were one failed rally away from being knocked out of the idiotic Wild Card game. Yep, talent had something to do with the Royals going to the World Series.

“We had our Moneyball movie, and they didn’t even win,’’ Peavy said of the Oakland Athletics. “How about let’s make a movie about the good ol’ fashioned baseball people, and how they judge team chemistry, and put together guys that fit in.

Great idea. I get the feeling Jake Peavy isn't a threat to appear on "Jeopardy" any time soon. Unless the topic is "Good ol' fashioned baseball people" I'm thinking he's probably better at throwing a ball than he is a-thinkin' with his head. 

“How about a movie about a team that actually wins in the end?’’

I believe that movie was made 25 years ago and it is called "Major League." Or maybe it is called "The Natural," "Bad News Bears," "Angels in the Outfield," "Little Big League," "Rookie of the Year," or one of the dozens of baseball movies made about a team that actually wins in the end. Great point, Jake Peavy.

There should be a movie called "Chemistry" where a team of baseball players who don't have the talent to play in the majors are all traded to the same team, then win the World Series because they all get along so well. Jake Peavy would love this.

You can't measure team chemistry, so maybe someone should create a dating website for baseball players so GM's can know which players will have the most in common and therefore enjoy spending time with each other. It can be like Match.com for athletes. Or is that too much like trying to measure chemistry? Maybe other MLB teams should try to create the chemistry the Blue Jays have by trading for three great players and seeing if that helps them win more games. I don't know, getting really talented players could work to help a team win more games.

2 comments Jonny Gomes: Patriotic, Testosterone Filled American Hero; Possibly Not a Very Good Baseball Player Anymore But Why Should That Matter?

I haven't posted an article fawning about a player's grit and hustle on this blog lately. Without David Eckstein around there is a real lack of grit in MLB. It's sad, but no one can replace the grit with which Eckstein played the game. Eckstein was a gateway drug where sportswriters wrote cliche-laden columns about how, sure, Player X isn't actually good at baseball, but he brings intangibles that can't be measured and yet they just found a way to measure them and here's how many intangibles Player X has. Fortunately, David O'Brien is around to talk about Jonny Gomes and the profound impact of leadership and grit he has brought to a Braves team that lacks talent, but apparently needs a shit-ton of non-quantifiable things that can't be measured so don't bother questioning whether the fact he can only hit lefties is worth it. Of course Fredi Gonzalez has played Gomes mostly against right-handed pitchers, but that's a different issue. Here's some fawning over intangibles, which again, can't be measured, but trust David O'Brien, Gomes has a lot of them.

When Braves left fielder Jonny Gomes ran to his position in the middle of the second inning Monday, the Red Sox showed a highlight reel on the center-field video board that featured fist-pumping, muscle-flexing, helmet-flying moments from Gomes’ stint with the Red Sox, whom he helped win the 2013 World Series.

Very inspirational. It makes me want to listen to some Kid Rock and watch all of the "The Marine" films in a row while down Budweiser cans and not giving a fuck if I get some of my tobacco juice on the carpet. 

There was much energy and testosterone evident 

America, FUCK YEAH!

There is just something odd about typing how much testosterone was evident when Gomes takes the field. I can't explain it. It just seems like a sort of weird thing to type out. Gomes is a perfectly serviceable player, don't get me wrong. I'm not sure he merits this type of column.

as Gomes stirred up teammates and fans with one dramatic homer and diving catch after another in that highlight package.

It's a highlight package. Nearly any player can have a highlight package put together and make it look like the player was homering and making diving catches on a nightly basis. I'm not dismissing Gomes' achievements with the Red Sox or anything like that, but his job is to hit the baseball while fielding well for the Braves. He hasn't quite done that. His leadership is important, I'm sure, but not worthy of the hero worship.

So many moments that it was hard to believe he only played for the Red Sox from the start of the 2013 season until last July 31, 2014, when he was shipped to Oakland with Jon Lester in a trade-deadline deal.

Gomes' leadership was so important to the Red Sox they felt the need to share that leadership and patriotism with the A's. Then the A's felt other MLB teams needed the opportunity to share in Gomes' energy and testosterone, so they didn't re-sign him. It's nice these teams all want to share Gomes' great energy with other MLB teams. 

Gomes had that effect on Boston and Red Sox Nation, where his hustle and blue-collar attitude were greatly appreciated, along with his overt patriotism and front-and-center role in helping Boston sports teams and citizens come together –

This is a real sentence that was written. I haven't changed a word. Yes, the phrases:

-"Red Sox Nation" (all caps, of course)
-"hustle and blue-collar attitude"
-"overt patriotism"
-"helping Boston sports teams and citizens come together"

all appeared in one sentence. All this sentence is missing is a reference to "grit" and how intangibles can't be measured, but Gomes' intangibles can be measured and that's how O'Brien knows he has a lot of them.

a team that already had iconic David Ortiz and Dustin Pedroia, but quickly embraced Gomes’ fiery enthusiasm and indefatigable optimism. Along with his right-handed power and flair for dramatic pinch-hit homers.

This doesn't sound like anecdotal evidence. In 2013, Gomes hit two pinch-home runs. One in a 9-2 Red Sox win and one in a 2-1 Red Sox win. He hit zero pinch-hit home runs in the 2013 playoffs. In 2014, Gomes hit two pinch-hit home runs. One in an 8-5 Red Sox loss and one in a 5-4 Red Sox victory. So I'm seeing one dramatic pinch-hit home run while he was with the Red Sox, as one pinch-hit homer happened before the 7th inning. I'm not sure where the plural of it came from like there are limitless amount of dramatic pinch-hit homers Gomes hit, but it sure is fun to exaggerate a little bit when using anecdotal evidence isn't it?

Gomes, 34, hasn’t given the Braves much in the way of offense, batting .209 with three homers in 115 plate appearances, with a .615 OPS that would be a career low.

Ah, but who cares? It's fun to measure Gomes' contributions in terms of his actual hitting contributions until it no longer helps to prove the point of how he helps the team. At that point, just ignore Gomes is only good for hitting lefties at this point in his career and let's talk about intangibles. Those things that can't be measured, but Gomes has a lot of them. David O'Brien knows Gomes has a lot of intangibles that can't be measured because he just knows it. 

But he’s hit .300 (9-for-30) against lefties, had a couple of big pinch-hit homers and made a few diving catches, including a spectacular one in the fourth inning Monday that robbed Pedroia of an extra-base hit and likely prevented a run when Brock Holt followed with a single.

Now I'm confused. David O'Brien states that Gomes had a couple of big pinch-hit homers and as of the day that he wrote this fawning embarrassment of a column Gomes had three home runs on the season. Only one of them came as a pinch-hitter and it took a 5-5 game against the Blue Jays and made it a 6-5 game. Other than that, there are no other pinch-hit homers that he has hit for the Braves. So I'm not arguing semantics, but "a couple" doesn't mean one home run was hit. It means more than one home run was hit. The reason I bring this up is this goes to how O'Brien will exaggerate Gomes' contributions on the field in an effort to make Gomes seem more productive than he really is. If O'Brien will exaggerate what Gomes does on the field, wouldn't it make sense that he would exaggerate Gomes' contribution off the field too? So there is a possibility this entire column about Gomes' "unmeasurable" qualities could just be one big exaggeration? Hence, my issues with fawning columns about a player's grit and leadership skills. It could be true, but when the author plays loosely with numbers it brings into question whether he's playing loosely about the player's grit and leadership skills too.

“What he brings to the team, you can’t quantify that,” Braves shortstop Andrelton Simmons said. “You can’t put it in numbers. You can’t explain what it is.”

What O'Brien has put in numbers has been sort of shaky on the "truthiness" front so far. So, it's probably good the platitudes about Gomes are completely non-quantifiable. 

But Simmons tried to anyway.

Because, why not? That's the kind of column O'Brien is looking to write. May as well appease him. 

“He brings hustle, No. 1,” Simmons said. “He’s always playing hard, whenever he’s in the lineup. A lot of energy. Leadership and energy, that’s the two biggest things.

Wow, so if Gomes brought no energy and wasn't a leader, but just happened to produce and hit the ball well...what would that mean? 

Even players who might have been a bit skeptical about Gomes’ ballyhooed leadership became believers after he joined the team.

By the way, who has "ballyhooed" Gomes' leadership? Sportswriters like David O'Brien. So he ballyhoos the leadership and then writes about how Gomes has ballyhooed leadership. It's sort of a story he reports on while helping to create the story. 

Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez, who batted Gomes in the cleanup spot Tuesday, 

This makes me throw up. Not only is Fredi hitting Gomes against mostly right-handed pitchers, but he's also hitting Gomes cleanup. 

was asked by a Boston writer on Monday if Gomes brought to the Braves clubhouse what he brought to Boston.

“Same,” Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez. 

That's not a good enough answer. Fredi will provide his motorcycling buddy Braves beat writer with a little hyperbole and cliches. No column about a gritty player is complete until there is cliches written throughout the column.

“He’s a team guy, comes in every day with a great mind frame. Everybody that’s around  him, he makes them better. Just the way he carries himself. He cares about winning and losing games. He goes about it the right way.

This all means very little. It's just a bunch of cliches thrown into a sentence. "A great mind frame" and "just the way he carries himself." Apparently other players don't care about winning and losing games while going about "it" the wrong way? What the fuck does all of this even mean? It's embarrassing to have these things written from a beat writer. What sort of specific information does it provide to the reader? None. 

Even when he was racking up 18 homers and 86 RBIs for the 2010 Cincinnati Reds, or 18 homers with an .868 OPS for the 2012 Oakland Athletics,  or 13 homers with 52 RBIs as a platoon player and pinch hitter for the 2013 Red Sox, his biggest impact still came in the clubhouse, many of those who played with him have said.

Since Gomes is hitting the ball terribly during the 2015 season then I hope his biggest contributions are still coming in the clubhouse. Otherwise, he isn't helping the Braves team at all. 

First baseman  Freddie Freeman said in the last week of spring training, when a reporter asked him about the team’s chances, that they believed they could win because Gomes had made them believe it.

It's the Cult of Jonny Gomes. He's like Scientology. You aren't a believer until you meet him and then you immediately become a part of the group, isolated from your friends, and unwilling to associate with others who don't think Jonny Gomes is just the absolute greatest leader and patriot in the universe. 

Gomes got a standing ovation as the highlight reel played Monday night, and he appreciated it.

Well yes, anyone appreciates it when their ego gets stroked a little bit. So of course he appreciated the highlight reel and standing ovation. I would too. 

“I’ve been in a couple of organizations, and I always though that was cool, when an opposing player comes back and you get the standing ovation,” he said. “It’s pretty cool, and obviously these are pretty knowledgeable fans and they appreciate the way you play the game.”

This is the type of article many sports fans hate. There are meaningless quotes from a player, cliches thrown about, and there's really no new information to be gathered. Great, Jonny Gomes likes to get a standing ovation and to be appreciated. 

“I guess, maybe unfortunately for them, but I’m not here to give advice, by any means,” Gomes replied. “Lot of good friends in that clubhouse, even on the (coaching) staff. But I wear a different uniform now. I’m here to put two MORE in their loss column.

Well, Gomes went 1-8 with 5 strikeouts against the Red Sox, so he wasn't really there to do much of anything except help try and help the Red Sox put MORE in their win column. I know I'm being hard on Gomes, but fluff pieces draw my ire. 

The tension level in the Red Sox clubhouse has risen as their slump has deepened, and another writer asked Gomes, only half-seriously, if he had any plans to stop by and chat with his old teammates, maybe help with some quick team-bonding like the old days.

Get these Red Sox players acclimated to the Cult of Jonny Gomes. Just one visit to the clubhouse and he can fix any chemistry problems that team may have. It works that quickly.

“I’m with another team now, the Braves,” Gomes said. “I bring my tools over to the Braves.

I'm being mean, so I'll hold off on making a comment about Gomes' "tools." He has 50 more at-bats against right-handers versus left-handers and that's not how he is going to have success with the Braves. Gomes' tools, unlike his energy and patriotism, only last as far as his playing ability will take him. So far, these tools take him in the direction of hitting the ball well against left-handed pitchers. But you can't put a price on his intangibles, which are those unmeasurable items that can't be measured, yet David O'Brien knows Gomes has a lot of them. These intangibles are probably deeply tied to Gomes' patriotism, which is important for a baseball player to have...as long as that baseball player is American of course. 

They’re in a tough spot, but at the end of the day, they’re two series away from first (place). I don’t know how much panic’s going on over there. But I know we’re 3 ½ back over here, and I’m excited to be here.”

Yes, excitement. The exact opposite feeling I got when I read this fluff piece from David O'Brien. If he can't find anything interesting to write, just don't do a fluff piece. That's pretty much all I ask. I get tired of reading about how a player provides value beyond the baseball field, all while that player's contributions on the field are glossed over in favor of cliches and talk about intangibles that NO ONE can measure, yet the author seems to know how to do exactly that. 

0 comments Jim Souhan Says He's Glad the Twins Hired Paul Molitor So The Coddling of Twins Players Can End; Then Eats An Entire Plate of Nachos From The Safety of the Press Box

Like his fellow Twins-watcher Tom Powers, Jim Souhan thinks the Twins have been coddling their players too much under Ron Gardenhire. Much like Tom Powers, Souhan states this as someone who doesn't make his living in athletics where he could suffer a severe injury, unless carpal tunnel counts as a severe injury. Fortunately, the Twins have hired Paul Molitor to end the coddling of the Twins players. Previously, Twins players have missed games with brain injuries and torn muscle parts, but that era has ended with Paul Molitor in town. Now there's no excuse for missing a game. Just rub some cocaine and marijuana on it like Molitor did and get out on the field. If a Twins player is thinking about sitting a game out, take it from a guy who had an article written about him stating,

The amazing thing about Paul Molitor's recent bat-o-rama is not that he has hit in 33 straight games but that he has played in 33 straight games.

I'm sure Molitor's injuries were just a result of him playing too hard and trying too hard not to coddle himself. The idea a player who was famous early in his career for being injured no longer allowing Twins players who are injured to be coddled is funny. From the first article I linked, here is a list of Paul Molitor's ailments from 1980-1986:

Molitor was voted to the American League's starting lineup for the 1980 All-Star Game but had to excuse himself. A pulled chest muscle forced the Milwaukee infielder to miss almost a full month of play, from June 24 to July 18.

In 1981, Molitor tore ligaments in his left ankle May 3 and was on the disabled list until July 12.

In 1983, a wrist injury bothered him all season, and his batting average, hit and RBI totals fell way off from the year before.

In 1984, Molitor hurt his right elbow in spring training, played 13 games before undergoing surgery May 21, and never came back.

In 1985, Molitor made the All-Stars again, but spent Aug. 13-29 on the disabled list with a sprained ankle.

In 1986, Molitor hurt his hamstring, was put on the disabled list from May 10-30, hurt it again three days later, and returned to the disabled list from June 2-17.

I'm sure Jim Souhan thinks all of these injuries were from trying too hard and trying to be gritty enough to continue playing. There is nothing wrong with being injured and I am smart enough to understand Molitor can't rub dirt on his injuries and come back in the game. Unfortunately, Jim Souhan forgets about Molitor's past and decides that the coddling of Twins players has to stop...and Molitor is the guy to do it, while conveniently ignoring that Molitor had his own injury issues. 

As a player, Paul Molitor demonstrated competitiveness not with gestures or celebrations, but with stone-faced, head-first slides into spikes.

He slid "into spikes" as a player? That seems unnecessary to prove his toughness. The bases don't even have spikes on them, yet Molitor slid into bases with spikes anyway. That's toughness.

In 2001, he hinted at the fires within. The baby Twins, having led the American League Central for most of the season, were ambushed by a veteran Indians team in Cleveland late in the season. Molitor, then coaching under Tom Kelly,

Tom Kelly, a known pussy who somehow managed to ride the grit of Jack Morris and Frank Viola to two World Series titles.

thought the opponents and umpires were displaying disrespectfulness to his team. It took multiple people to keep him from bursting onto the field to physically make a point.

Leadership is physically assaulting an umpire and the opponent.

Last season, as the Twins lost 92 games, Molitor — promoted from coach to manager on Tuesday — again tried to remain below boiling temperature.

“There were times last year when we’d get on the team bus after a loss and Paul would look over at me and just shake his head,” Twins assistant general manager Rob Antony said. “He had that look in his eye, like he was ready to explode. And I know that look, because I was sitting on that bus thinking, ‘That was a game we should have won.’

If it weren't for the group of nine human vaginas on the field who can't play through injuries, these games would have been won. This isn't ballet guys, it's baseball. Suit up and play baseball...unless you can't like Molitor couldn't earlier in his career in which case that was fine for him, but totally isn't fine the current Twins players.

“We won 70 games last year. I think we should have won 78. To go from 78 to 88, or something close, I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I think we should be competitive this year.”

At his first news conference as manager, Molitor said: “I’m coming here to win.”

BREAKING NEWS: A newly-hired manager states his intention is to win baseball games.

His first order of business should be introducing a new mentality to the clubhouse.

A mentality like cocaine use to work through any tired feeling or marijuana use to numb any pain the players may have?

During their four consecutive losing seasons, the Twins tried to exercise caution with injured or bruised players. Anyone complaining of an ache was given an extra day or two off. There is logic in that approach.

You mean an ache like an injured hamstring that Molitor had during the 1986 season? Or an ache like a pulled chest muscle that Molitor had during the 1981 season?

There is also danger.

Danger!

The Twins clubhouse became a place where you could collect a check without actually taking the field.

One of the early tests of Molitor’s tenure will be his handling of his best player, Joe Mauer.

The player for the Twins who is a catcher and has suffered many of the ailments that a catcher will traditionally suffer, including concussions and knee surgery? The same Joe Mauer who holds the Twins' record for most games played at catcher?

Both grew up in St. Paul. Both played baseball at Cretin High. Both had the early years of their careers defined by constant injuries. The difference between them is important. Molitor’s desire to play was obvious. Mauer’s is not.

This doesn't really make sense. How does Souhan know that Molitor's desire to play was obvious and Mauer's desire is not? Is Souhan also able to visually determine a player's desire, even going back 30 years? Or is he just writing this sentence in a weak attempt to push Molitor's injuries off as something he couldn't fight through in an effort to head off the obvious contradiction in painting an oft-injured ex-player-turned-manager as a guy who will force his players to fight through injuries.

When the guy making $23 million a year begs out of the lineup because of a bruise, it’s difficult for the manager to push others to play through pain.

Souhan is referring to Mauer leaving a game with a bruised right elbow. This happened on September 23 and he returned on September 25.

Molitor’s predecessor, Ron Gardenhire, believed in maintaining cordial relations with key players. That approach worked for most of a decade. It appeared to fail in recent years with Mauer.

Mostly playing catcher, Joe Mauer has played in at least 113 games in every year of his career except for 2011 and 2004 when he was called up from the minors. Catchers are banged up a lot and in 11 seasons Joe Mauer has played 210 games as the DH and 920 games as the catcher, while Molitor played 1173 games as the DH in 21 seasons. Just saying, it's a lot easier to get banged up as a catcher.

Can Molitor play the bad guy?

“Yes,” he said. “It is a necessary part of the job. But for me, it’s kind of like surgery. It’s kind of the last option. I want to reach people in different ways before that needs to be done. We all know that different players have different buttons that need to be pushed.

And hopefully Molitor can push the "Rub some dirt on it" button that his manager couldn't seem to be able to push for him early in his career.

“We can all talk nice and fluffy about, ‘Well, you can all get along, and then they’ll play for you.’ In reality, not everyone is going to fit into that mode. They’re going to challenge you along the way, and see where you stand. I will choose other things first, but yes, there will be times when you need to be tough.

Plus, winning. Paul Molitor will be trying to win games too. Don't forget that. It's a goal other managers tend to forget about.

Does Mauer expect to be managed differently? “Well, I’d like to think I don’t need a lot of managing, as long as I get in the lineup,” he said.

Which should happen since Mauer is still a really good hitter. That's getting lost in this discussion about how the Twins aren't a tough team and Joe Mauer left a game due to a bruise.

Does closer Glen Perkins, who is friends with Mauer and an admirer of Molitor’s, believe the new manager will have to push this group of players?

“I think that there’s an inherent respect for him that’s going to make guys do the things they have to do,” he said. “I don’t think there’s going to be any lackadaisicalness. With him, it’s the same thing as with Terry Ryan. When Terry walks into the room, you stand up and shake his hand. He commands respect. Paul Molitor is the same way. Nobody is going to feel right about trying to get away with certain things.

“The culture changes with just hiring him, and him being our leader. It’s a welcome change.”

"Pussies not allowed!" is what Glen Perkins is really saying. All of these Twins players who have been coddled are finally going to be forced to play through their injuries. Of course, Jim Souhan in typical talk-radio style only named one Twins player who he thinks has been coddled, but I'm sure there are many, many more that he just didn't have time to name in this column. After all, when indicating in the title there are multiple Twins players who are being coddled, it makes sense to only use the example one player, and for that one player to be the Twins catcher.

By the way, Yadier Molina (a guy I don't think anyone would state is not tough) has played in an average of 120 games per year in his career,  while Joe Mauer has played in an average of 118 games in his career. The man who upholds all that is great and right in baseball, Brian McCann, has averaged playing in 124 games per year in his career. So catchers get injured and can't play in every game during a season. Now that Mauer has been moved to first, maybe the bar is higher, but he still has almost a decade of wear from playing catcher on his body. Not that it matters to Jim Souhan as he eats a pre-game spread and tosses back a Diet Coke before the game safely in the press box, it's just that Mauer isn't tough enough. Paul Molitor is obviously the cure.

Jim Souhan also wrote an article where he thought that Molitor should maximize the grit and toughness of the Twins team by hiring an entire coaching staff of Twins legends. What could go wrong?
 

On Tuesday, the Twins, for the first time, hired a Hall of Fame player to be their manager.

Why stop there?

Why not surround Paul Molitor with other famous former Twins?

Greg Gagne for hitting coach! It's the only way to win. Jeff Reardon for pitching coach!

Why not hire coaches who will inspire admiration, if not fear, in the Twins clubhouse?

"Admiration, fear...they are pretty much the same thing," said the future dictator of a Communist country. 

Traditionally, major league coaches earn their jobs through years of minor league work and organizational loyalty.

The advantage Molitor has now, and has enjoyed as a minor league instructor and spring training coach, is that his reputation precedes him. If a young player doesn’t know who he is, someone like Glen Perkins or Brian Dozier will tell that player, “Listen to this guy. He’s in the Hall of Fame, and he got there with his brain.”

That's a great story, Jim. Actually Paul Molitor got in the Hall of Fame with his ability to hit a baseball, but it sounds much, much cooler to say he got there with his brain. 

In an otherwise empty Twins spring training clubhouse in 1996, I was interviewing Chuck Knoblauch when Ron Gardenhire, then a coach on Tom Kelly’s staff, came in and told Knoblauch he was wanted on the field. Knoblauch said, “In a minute,” and didn’t move.

Gardenhire, angry, left. Knoblauch said, “What’s he gonna do? He’s just a coach.”

Then Knoblauch went on the field and threw the baseball into the stands when trying to scoop the ball to the shortstop for a double play. 

Knoblauch was being a jerk. He was also correct: The average major league coach wields little actual power. The average major league coach is seen as part valet, part worker bee.

Now imagine a clubhouse filled with young players, run by a manager named Molitor, and coaches named — take your pick — Dan Gladden, Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven or Eddie Guardado.

Oh yeah, that's a great point. With guys like Gladden, Morris or Guardado in the locker room players will be like, "I don't know who the fuck that guy is because he isn't in the Hall of Fame like Paul Molitor is, but I am definitely going to respect that guy because they are the average major league coach that wields little power." 

My ideal Twins staff would be Molitor, Brunansky, Guardado as bullpen coach, Gladden as outfield coach and Morris or Blyleven as pitching coach.

Basically, Jim Souhan's ideal Twins staff has almost no experience actually being a coach at the major league level. I can't imagine how that wouldn't work out. 

The Twins would need to hire a Latin American former player who could communicate with the team’s Spanish-speaking players, and Molitor could use a veteran bench coach.

That's a great point. Who can speak to all the Mexicans? Perhaps Rick Aguilera? Sure, he ain't no Mexican, but as long as he can spit a few words of Spanish out I'm sure it will appease everyone. What are the Mexican players going to do anyway? Paul Molitor ain't having any bullshit in his clubhouse, including any bitching about the fact there ain't no Spanish-speaking coaches. Go home if you won't play hurt and or you think that you need a translator! Paul Molitor and Jack Morris never needed a translator and neither do you!

All of the above were known for mental and physical toughness as well as success. They are all capable of keeping a clubhouse loose, or getting in a sluggish player’s face.

And that's really what it is all about, getting in a player's face. Boy, Jim Souhan really wants to watch grown men get yelled at, doesn't he?

Just as Molitor can teach a young player the proper footwork required to steal bases in the majors,

"Run in that direction and then slide once you get close to the base."

Guardado could show his own game films

That sounds like a good use of time. "Hey everyone, come see how good I pitched! No bitching about watching me pitch for two hours or else Paul Molitor will get in your face. I'm keeping it loose now, but when Jack Morris comes in raging that you aren't watching my game film, it's on you to calm him down."

while demonstrating that velocity is not a prerequisite to pitching well in the big leagues.

"Throw slower and success will come."

Isn't that the direction baseball is headed? Softer throwing relievers?

Gladden can explain how he learned to expertly play left field,

"When the ball was hit to me, I used my legs to run and catch it. Here, now you try."

Morris and Blyleven can take apart games pitch by pitch.

And Morris will always complete every game he takes apart pitch by pitch, just like he completed every game he started in the majors...including GAME 7 OF THE 1991 WORLD SERIES.

Most big-league coaches are happy to have a job and hold little leverage. The Twins would have to woo Morris or Blyleven away from good broadcasting gigs offering scheduling flexibility. That would be expensive.

(Twins management) "Bert, you can fart in the clubhouse." 

(Bert Blyleven) "It's a deal."

(Twins management) "Jack, you can tell stories about GAME 7 OF THE 1991 WORLD SERIES and we will put a good word in for you to the Veteran's Commit---"

(Jack Morris) "It's a deal."

The organization strives to keep its best players close; they can’t get much closer than wearing a uniform in the dugout during games.

The dynasty would then begin. Now Paul Molitor is going to go get in someone's face which will cause fear in the player, followed by admiration.

2 comments This Is Not a Hit-Job on Michael Young, It's Just Me Noticing the Difference in Reality and the Perception of Michael Young

Michael Young retired recently. Good for him. He was a very good player while he was in the majors. His reputation as the consummate team player is still intact, kept alive by beat and national writers who worship the ground he walks on. This despite the fact Young has demanded a trade twice in his career. I have detailed two of the idoltastic (yep, that's not a word) columns written on Michael Young here and here. I don't dislike the guy, but the perception of him as a team player seems to be a little bit different from his actions as a team player...at least at certain times this is true. Well, Richard Justice writes a column in memoriam of Young's career and it's just a little bit revisionist for me. The sub-title of the column is "Former Rangers fixture leaves a team-first legacy." As long as you don't include his overall grumpiness at being asked to move positions and his trade demands, then yes, he was a team player. I think that has to be a part of his legacy and not something that gets quickly mentioned and glossed over.

I feel like a lot of my criticism of Michael Young is of the "I'm just saying..." variety where Young says something about moving positions or a beat writer says Young is a team player and I feel obligated to point out there are some non-team player aspects to Young's career. For example, recently Michael Young said this. 

Yes, he really isn't saying very much. He just says he wonders what could have happened if he had played second base his entire career. The problem is I know he was bitter about having to move to third base when Elvis Andrus came along and bitter about moving to DH when Adrian Beltre/Mike Napoli joined the Rangers as their starting third baseman. So I probably read some bitterness into his comment that may or may not be there. It sounds bitter to me though. It sounds like, "If the Rangers had not moved me then I could have done great things," which sounds selfish and doesn't seem to jive with the fact every time the Rangers made Young move positions it improved the team. I don't know if a team-first guy would make comments like this that don't sound incredibly team-first. Every time the Rangers asked Young to move it improved the team, so his comment that could be innocent could come off as a little selfish. Anyway, on to the Richard Justice column.

Michael Young won a Gold Glove playing shortstop for the Texas Rangers in 2008, and even if you didn't know a single other thing about him, the story behind that award gets to the essence of most of what he came to stand for among the teammates, managers and especially the fans who absolutely adored the guy.

Just read the comments on this column. Michael Young is adored. Obviously I feel like I'm an asshole if I bring up the essence of what happened when the Rangers asked Young to move to third base and then later requested he become a primary designated hitter.

Young announced his retirement on Thursday, saying simply that the time had come to get on with the next chapter of his life.

I imagine if Young's wife asks him to move the living room couch to another room in the house then Young will demand they purchase another house.

But a combination of factors -- distance from family, playing time and perhaps changing teams again -- appears to have nudged him toward the door. He leaves as a career .300 hitter and a seven-time All-Star. He won a batting championship in 2005 and is the Rangers' all-time leader in hits with 2,230.

Quit killing time. Let's get to the story about how unselfish Young is so I can be an asshole.

Between 2002 and '13, he averaged 155 games per season and never spent a day on the disabled list.

And Terence Moore says there are no iron men anymore.

He's also the only player in at least 90 years to have started 400 games at second, short and third. Which brings us back to that 2008 Gold Glove Award.

The Rangers traded their shortstop, Alex Rodriguez, to the New York Yankees at the beginning of Spring Training in 2004. In return, they got Alfonso Soriano, who they thought would replace Rodriguez at short.

When Soriano showed up at Spring Training, he made it clear he didn't want to play short. He'd been a full-time second baseman for three seasons with the Yankees and didn't like the idea of moving.

What a selfish immigrant. It's a good thing the border to Mexico is close to Texas because Soriano could just jump the fence back to Mexico if he doesn't like how things are run here in America.

Before the situation had a chance to get ugly, Young showed up one morning, stepped into Rangers manager Buck Showalter's office and closed the door.

"I'll play short," he said.

This was a team-first and unselfish move. I won't bash him for this.

To make that kind of switch would not be the easiest of adjustments.

Soriano had experience playing shortstop and Michael Young really didn't. This was the first of three position changes for Young and also the only position change he accepted without demanding a trade first. Of course, Richard Justice glosses over that in an effort to eulogize Young's career and make him seem like a completely team-first guy.

Young told reporters at the time he did it because he liked the challenge of playing short. Yet, what virtually every teammate -- and Showalter -- knew was something else. He did it to make the new guy's transition smoother and the Rangers better.

Making the new guy's transition smoother and the Rangers better is something Young was resistant to the other two times he was asked to change positions. It's not bashing Young, but a simple recitation of a fact. Painting Young as this guy who is always team-first just isn't factually correct. Hell, Young is still reminiscing about his career if he didn't volunteer to play shortstop and had stayed at second base.

Here are some quotes from when Young was asked to move to third base to make room for Elvis Andrus, a move that would make the Rangers a better team:

"My focus is playing for the Rangers, playing for a winning club and playing the best third base that I can," Young said. "Yes, I was adamant about staying at shortstop. But at the end of the day, after looking at everything, the chances of being traded were slim and the team wasn't really pursuing a trade.

"They wanted me to play third base and I didn't want this to drag on. I don't want my focus to be on anything but being ready for Spring Training. I'm focused on having a big year and the last thing I wanted to do was have anything take away from that." 

Young agreed to move because his trade demand wasn't fulfilled or the Rangers weren't actively looking to trade him. Either way, he wants to be ready for the season (which is admirable), but he wanted to be traded rather than switch positions (which is a direct contradiction of Richard Justice's "Team-first" and "He wants the team to be better" point of view as it relates to Young) positions.

"This is the way it was going to turn out. There was no trade in sight so once I thought it over, it was time to get to work."

The decision ends four days of controversy that erupted on Sunday night when Daniels announced that the Rangers had requested Young to move to third base. Young publicly responded that he was being forced to move to third base and wanted to be traded instead. 

I give Young credit for playing rather than continuing to demand a trade, but the fact is Young only stopped demanding a trade because his wish to be trade wasn't being fulfilled, not out of the goodness of his heart.

Here are some quotes from when Young was asked to move to DH to make room for Adrian Beltre and Mike Napoli, a move that would make the Rangers a better team:

Then Texas signed Mike Napoli and announced he would also play as the Rangers designated hitter.

That was the last straw.

Michael Young asked for a trade.

“The suggestion that I had a change of heart and asked for a trade is a manipulation of the truth,” Young said. “I asked for a trade because I’ve been misled and manipulated and I’m sick of it.

Young ended up getting 631 at-bats during the 2011 season, while starting 69 games at DH, 39 games at third base, 36 games at first base, 14 games at second base, and 1 game at shortstop. So he was lied to, in that he wasn't being asked to be a DH for the majority of the games he started.

"This has been a long time coming based on things that occurred off the field,” Young said. “I’m sick of it. It hit a point where I felt it was unfair to me and my family.”

Did Young's $16 million paycheck bounce? It didn't? Well then I'm sure he would get over being lied to and manipulated.

I understand the Rangers asked Young to move positions three times in his career and it is perceived as unfair to him. Part of the reason it is perceived as so unfair is because he made such a big deal out of the last two times he was asked to switch positions. Other baseball players have switched positions and the position switch wasn't a huge deal because it wasn't made a huge deal. Young's trade demands had fans taking positions on whether what the Rangers were asking him to do was fair or not. Chipper Jones moved to left field to make room for Vinny Castilla. He didn't like it, but he didn't make a huge deal out of it to where he demanded a trade. Alex Rodriguez probably would rather have played shortstop with the Yankees, but he knew if he played for them then he would have to play third base. Even Alfonso Soriano eventually moved away from second base to play left field after being traded to the Nationals. It's not an issue unless it is made an issue.

While I respect Young, the idea he is team-first just isn't completely true. He was team-first the initial time he volunteered to move to shortstop, but after being asked to move positions again, he demanded a trade and wasn't team-first. It's possible for Young to be in the right to refuse to move, while also acknowledging this refusal to move doesn't mean he is a team-first player. These aren't mutually exclusive positions. Young was sort of jerked around by the Rangers, but by demanding a trade this meant he wasn't exactly being team-first because his moving positions made the Rangers a stronger team.

"Typical Michael Young," Showalter said. "He's one of those guys who'll do whatever is best for the club. You don't find a lot of guys like that."

But this statement wasn't true for Young's entire career.

Young emerged as the Rangers' most popular and productive player. At a time when the franchise was in a 10-season postseason drought, Young set a tone in the clubhouse for professionalism, work ethic and doing things right.

See? I'm not bashing him. Young played the game the right way, with grit, hustle and a team-first attitude as long as being team-first fit his needs and wants. He was the face of the Rangers franchise and should be remembered that way. Attributes that Young possessed don't need to be fictionalized for him to have a rich legacy as a Texas Ranger.

When the Rangers finally emerged from the darkness to win the first of two straight American League pennants in 2010, Young did a pretty good imitation of the happiest man on earth.

Of course, if Michael Young had his way then he would not have been on the team that won the first of two straight American League pennants nor on the team that won the second straight American League pennant. He would have been traded to a team that would allow him to play shortstop.

By then, he'd been asked to change positions a couple more times. He moved from short to third in 2009 to make room for Elvis Andrus and then agreed to move here, there and everywhere when third baseman Adrian Beltre was signed before the 2011 season.

And there we go. The gloss-over has occurred. To leave out two trade demands in an article where Richard Justice is putting Young out there as a team-first guy is simply bad writing. If it's not bad writing then it is a fictionalized version of real events. It's impossible for me to fathom how an article about Young being a team-first guy could be written while completely ignoring his two trade demands and the fact he wouldn't have been on the 2010 and 2011 Texas Rangers team if it weren't for the fact his demand request wasn't accepted and executed.

By then, he'd long since established himself in the hearts and minds of Rangers fans. They'll forever remember him as a guy who was both a tremendous player and a tremendous person, someone who thought being a Major League Baseball player was about more than simply playing.

Sorry, I"m choking on cliches and sentiment right now. Again, I think it's possible to remember Michael Young as a great baseball player who was jerked around by the Rangers in a way, while also acknowledging Young's trade demand wasn't team-first.

But he was there when they turned the corner,

Even though it was initially against his will.

and his fingerprints are all over everything they've accomplished.

Which was partially accomplished because of the players the Rangers acquired which caused Young to demand a trade twice.

In the end, that's a legacy with which he can take pride.

Young should absolutely take pride in his career. Richard Justice should not take pride in writing an article that whitewashes part of Michael Young's history with the Rangers. It's clear from Young's quote about playing second base for his whole career that he hasn't forgotten he was asked to move positions and anyone writing about Young being a team-first player shouldn't forget either.

2 comments Bleacher Report Makes a List of Lazy Minority Baseball Players

Okay, well maybe Bleacher Report didn't specifically attempt to make a list of lazy minority baseball players, but I figured the tabloid-ish title was appropriate when discussing a Bleacher Report article/column/slideshow. The author compiles a "Least Likely to Hustle" team and it has one white guy on the team, whose presence on the list is fiercely debated in the comments. You don't call David Wright lazy apparently. This team consists of players who are not going to hustle and work hard on the baseball field. Ironically the very idea of writing a slideshow on the laziest players in MLB is a very lazy column idea. In writing this slideshow I would place the author on a "Least Likely to Think Hard for a Column Idea" team.

A lot can be said about a player who runs his hardest every time he takes the field.

And most of what will be said is in the form of useless hyperbole followed by the regular use of synonyms for the word "gritty."

Some players simply don’t hustle around the bases; they usually takes their time, especially if they hit a routine ground ball to the shortstop.

Chipper Jones occasionally didn't hustle out ground balls to second base or to first base. He's not an active player and isn't on this list, but not surprisingly I've never heard him called lazy for failing to run these ground balls out. I mention this because one instance of not hustling got a couple of players included on this "not hustling" team, so I would think Chipper's periodic jogs to first base could have earned him a spot. 

Want an example of a player who hustles? Bryce Harper. He arguably hustles more than any other player in baseball.

Want an article filled with hyperbole? Look no further than this column where the author says Bryce Harper "arguably" hustles more than any other player in baseball. It's good the "arguably" was included because there's no fucking way to determine which player actually hustles the most. Arguably, this is a dumb sentence.

If there were a team that wasn’t likely to hustle, here are the players who would be on it.

Let's start the slideshow! The team is broken down by position, so it's just like a real baseball team! Well, there are no relief pitchers represented, so it is broken down like a real baseball team from the early 1900's when starting pitchers always threw a complete game.

Carlos Santana, Cleveland Indians

Let's find out why Santana made this team...

Santana is much better known for his power from behind the plate. Because Santana hits a solid amount of home runs—55 over the course of his four-year career including four so far in the 2013 season—he gets to round the bases at his leisure.

So Sanchez is lazy because he hits a lot of home runs. Boy, Babe Ruth must have been really, really super lazy then.

A bunch of catchers could qualify for this position on this team, but Santana fits relatively well. Watching video of him, even just from this season, it’s obvious that he doesn’t round the bases as quickly as he could.

So video, unlinked in this column of course, show that Carlos Santana doesn't round the bases as quickly as he could? Maybe I will search for my own evidence. 

This is the only video evidence I could find and I wouldn't call that being lazy, but being dumb about base-running. There was an incident on August 30, 2012 where Santana was benched for a lack of hustle, but that was one incident and he seemed contrite. I guess one incident of not hustling is enough to make this list. In fact, if you Google "Carlos Santana hustling" then the fourth link that comes up is this very article. This is the Bleacher Report dream. The article written about how Carlos Santana doesn't hustle can be cited as evidence he doesn't hustle when doing an internet search on the topic. Those algorithms really work!

So Carlos Santana doesn't hustle because one time he didn't hustle. Plus, there is a bunch of video out there proving this point is true. Go look for it because the author doesn't have the time or energy to link it as proof what he is saying is correct.

Carlos Lee, Free Agent

Carlos Lee is currently one of many players without a major or minor league contract, and we’re well past the offseason and spring training. Is there still a chance that he signs a deal? Sure, but teams may be concerned with his hustle.

Or they may be concerned he is 36 years old, not a good defensive player, and hit .264/.332/.365 last year. His salary demands could also be the reason.

Spoiler alert: the salary demands appear to be the reason Carlos Lee isn't signed. Yes it is true, the author wonders whether it is Lee's lack of hustle that wards teams off from signing him, then links an article where Lee's salary demands are stated as being the main reason he hasn't signed a deal with a team. So the author proves his own hypothesis wrong. Brilliant writing.

Although he can probably still hit, there’s still the perception that he lacks hustle, according to an April 2012 article on Fox Sports Houston (h/t YardBarker).

Why does the perception become a reality? From the article:

Often maligned for his real or perceived lack of hustle in the past it can not be denied that Lee can still hit the ball better than the average player.

This perception doesn't mean Lee lacks hustle. So why is he on the "Least Likely to Hustle" team? 

So even with his five times on base and two RBIs his game on Tuesday was not flawless. He has brought leadership and yes, hustle, to the young Astros and so far is a role model to be followed.

So the article linked to provide evidence that Lee still lacks hustle actually goes out of its way to mention that Lee in fact DOES hustle. Again, brilliant writing. Bleacher Report has landed a great writer.

Maybe he sees that if he wants to change his mind and play more he needs to change perceptions. Astro fans know what those perceptions are. Carlos Lee can hit, but doesn't always (or often) hustle.

Again, it is a perception and the author is needlessly and foolishly buying into this perception by placing Lee on his team of players who don't hustle. Way to reinforce a perception that may or may not be true.

Also, I love the idea of Bleacher Report citing Yardbarker for a column link. It's like the "The National Enquirer" citing "US Weekly" about whether Jennifer Aniston is pregnant or not.

Lee is in actuality a happy go lucky guy who plays the percentages. He knows how fast he has to run to get to a ball and make a play. He knows when false hustle is just to make him look good, but really not productive. The problem is that when he measures his running effort it appears to be lack of hustle.

But again, reinforcing a perception with the only evidence this perception being true is the existence of a perception is ridiculously bad writing. The appearance of not hustling in the past doesn't serve as evidence that Lee doesn't hustle now. The author basically says, "There is a perception Lee doesn't hustle so that means he doesn't hustle and that's why he is on this list."

Ken Davidoff of the New York Post wrote in March that Lee hasn’t been willing to sign for a low-base salary.

So maybe the fact Lee doesn't want a low base salary is the reason he has not been signed yet? So why would the author believe it was Lee's lack of hustle when he cites a column specifically stating a very good reason why Lee hasn't been signed...that reason being he isn't willing to sign for a low base salary? I can't answer my overly-long question either.

Robinson Cano, New York Yankees

Robinson Cano might be one of the best players in baseball, but there’s no guarantee he’s going to leg out a double instead of taking it easy by stopping at first base. He has, however, hit at least 40 doubles in each of the last four seasons.

(Bengoodfella's brain explodes)

So let me get this straight. There is no guarantee that Robinson Cano is going to leg out a double instead of stopping at first base, but he has hit 40 doubles over the last four seasons. Isn't that the guarantee that Robinson Cano will try to leg out a double? What more would the author need? Cano obviously legs out doubles since he has hit at least 40 doubles over the last four seasons.

He was benched for a lapse in attention back in 2008.

Five years ago. He was benched for a lapse in attention five years ago. Five years ago is five years ago, and not considered recent.

Through 20 games this season, Cano is hitting .325/.378/.614 with six home runs and 14 RBI in a depleted New York Yankees lineup. It would be smart to assume that Cano might make more money on the open market this upcoming winter if he showed a little more effort this season.

It would be even smarter to assume a guy hitting .325 with an OPS of .992 is already expending a lot of effort. Of course asking a person who randomly says Robinson Cano doesn't hustle to be smart is probably asking too much.

David Wright, New York Mets

All it takes is one lapse for a player to end up on this list.

Unless you are Chipper Jones and then you would have permission to jog to first base as much as you want.

Well, back in 2009, he didn’t act professionally on one night.

You mean four years ago on one night David Wright didn't hustle!? One time out of over a thousand games he has played in the majors Wright didn't hustle and this means he is not likely to hustle. I guess one time is now a trend.

In a late-September game against the Florida Marlins—yes, they were still the Florida Marlins back in 2009—Wright was benched after a lack of hustle, according to Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post. Wright reportedly apologized to his teammates for not giving it his all.

“That’s just a mental mistake,” Wright said of the baserunning blunder—who took his time going home from third base on what was an easy play. “That’s my fault, and I take responsibility. It won’t happen again.”

Sorry, you just made the "Least Likely to Hustle" team because you didn't hustle one time four years ago. Hey, someone has to play third base in this terrible idea for a fictional baseball team.

In the comments when he was questioned about Wright as a selection to make this team the author said that he asked quite a few "FC's" and they named Wright as a third baseman who didn't hustle. "FC's" are "featured columnists" at Bleacher Report. So take that for what you think it is worth. Wright is the only non-Hispanic/African American player on this list. It's not racist, just interesting regarding what this could say about the perception of white athletes.

B.J. Upton, Atlanta Braves

Back in 2008, the center fielder was benched a pair of times by his former manager, Joe Maddon.

Again, this was five years ago. I'm sure a bunch of FC's named Upton as a member of this team though. FC's can't be wrong.

Upton told reporters that he thought that there were two outs and that’s why he didn’t put a ton of effort on the play. He also said he was “stunned” to get pulled from the game.

He's going to be even more stunned to be named to a team for players that don't hustle because he didn't hustle a couple of times as a 23 year old.
 
Alex Rios, Chicago White Sox

The Chicago White Sox used to be managed by Ozzie Guillen, who didn’t have the best relationship with outfielder Alex Rios. Guillen didn’t care for the way that Rios failed to hustle on plays. Now, Guillen isn’t the manager, but Rios still takes his time occasionally.

Oh, so he doesn't hustle on occasion even after Ozzie Guillen no longer manages the White Sox? Let's look at the evidence the author has for this...

Guillen benched Rios back in 2011 after he didn’t hustle on the basepaths.

But you...you said that Rios still takes his time occasionally now, even after Guillen is no longer the manager of the White Sox. The only evidence you use of Rios not hustling is from when Guillen was the manager. How are we to believe the author that Rios still doesn't hustle now if he can't cite evidence he is telling the truth about Rios not hustling now? Maybe the author just asked the FC's and they said Rios still doesn't hustle.

David Ortiz, Boston Red Sox

I'm guessing this is the reasoning for saying David Ortiz doesn't hustle.

But there is somewhat of a correlation between being a DH and putting 100 percent effort into running the bases.

But is there a correlation? I know the author says it, but is this a fact or an opinion? I'm betting this is an opinion. I don't know any FC's though, so my opinion doesn't count.

He frequently doesn’t run out ground balls to the infield because he knows there’s a slim chance he'll be able to beat the throw. 

Ortiz has had injury issues lately, which could prevent him from hustling hard.

I don't see how an Achilles tendon injury on a 37 year old would in any way prevent him from running at full speed 100% of the time. Inconceivable.

But in all honesty, it’s ugly watching him try to score from second or turn a single into a double. He’s probably just going to get thrown out no matter how hard he runs.

(Bengoodfella's brain re-explodes)

So David Ortiz doesn't hustle, but mostly because he has injury issues, but even if he did hustle he would get thrown out anyway? Doesn't the author's acknowledgement that Ortiz tries to score from second or tries to turn a single into a double contradict his contention Ortiz doesn't hustle? I think I am using too much logic. I'll never completely understand this column by using logic.

Hyun-Jin Ryu, Los Angeles Dodgers

I’m not sure if pitchers have to hit or run the bases in Korea,

If only there were a thing called "the Internet" where such answers could easily be found. If only.

Ryu hit a ball weakly down the third-base line but barely even jogged to first base despite the ball being live. He was thrown out with ease, and the crowd gave him quite a few boos as he returned to the dugout.

It was a bad effort, but nearly every National League pitcher at some point barely runs down the first base line in an effort to not get hurt running. So there could be 50 pitchers in this spot, but the author chose a Korean pitcher who didn't hustle in his very first National League start, which was also his first start in the United States. Interesting.

This "team" didn't have a relief pitcher on it and there are certainly relief pitchers who have to bat or could be seen as lazy. I guess the author didn't want hustle to find any lazy relief pitchers.

2 comments Terence Moore Is Joking with This Column about Mark DeRosa, Right?

I tend to dislike columns that rave about average players as if these players were the greatest baseball players to ever put on a uniform. These columns always rave about a guy's intangibles and how there may be a ton of stars on a certain team, but this guy (and his mediocre ability) are really what ties the team together. Terence Moore has written one of these columns about Mark DeRosa, who was batting .148/.242/.333 when Terence wrote this pile of shit he calls a column. See, DeRosa is a proven winner. He's a winning winner who only knows how to win. The Blue Jays may be struggling but as long as they have a utility player who can't seem to hit his weight, they will be fine. This article, in what I can only assume was the MLB.com editor's final cry for help, even called DeRosa the "unsung hero" of the Blue Jays in the title. DeRosa had four hits in 27 at-bats when this column was written by the way. They don't make heroes like they used to it seems.

At best, the supposedly mighty Toronto Blue Jays have been a bit less than that this season. Still, when it comes to progressing from their current state of mediocrity to something beyond goodness, they have hope.

The hope being that the Blue Jays have talent on offense and on their pitching staff and at some point their best players will start pitching or hitting like they are the Blue Jays best players again?

His name is Mark DeRosa.

If hope for the Blue Jays comes in the form of a guy who hasn't hit .200 in three out of the last four seasons then they are fucked. Like royally. If they want DeRosa to play multiple defensive positions competently, they are slightly less fucked. Regardless, Mark DeRosa should not represent hope.

You heard correctly.

Dear Terence,

You are writing a column and we can not hear the words as you type them. The correct word you should have used here is "read" not "heard," though if you believe when you are writing a column the readers can hear what you are writing then that would explain a lot to me.

Not sincerely with disregard,

Ben

Not Jose Reyes, the fancy shortstop who also became a new Blue Jays player, along with slugger Melky Cabrera.

Melky Cabrera has never hit more than 18 home runs in a season. The only time "slugger" needs to be used in a sentence with "Melky Cabrera" is if I tell someone that Melky Cabrera got arrested for hitting his wife and a question from that someone to me would be, "He uses steroids, so it doesn't come as a shock he would slug her while experiencing 'roid rage."

Neither is that hope simply this: The promise of the Blue Jays' collection of solid holdovers such as Jose Bautista, Colby Rasmus, Adam Lind and Edwin Encarnacion.

These players that Terence has just listed are the biggest hope for this Blue Jays team to turn it around and start playing well. If they are counting on Mark DeRosa for anything more than being versatile and having a pretty smile then they are in big trouble and the season isn't looking good. Every player Terence just listed is a bigger key to the Jays season than Mark DeRosa, yet he paints DeRosa as "the hero." Go figure.

Even so, DeRosa is the ultimate utility man, with the ability to play anywhere on the field -- literally.

He's never played catcher or pitcher in an MLB game, so "literally" he can't play everywhere on the field. "Literally," means literally and the very definition of the word means the person using the word is not exaggerating. Except Terence is exaggerating and using the word "literally," which means he is misusing the word and drawing my ire.

A utility player has value, there's no doubt about that, but a guy who can play multiple positions isn't necessarily a team's hero. Not to mention, to classify Mark DeRosa as a "winner" because he generally plays on teams that make the playoffs is terrible sportswriting at its best. The very idea of writing a column about how a player is a "winner" because he plays for teams who win, while that player generally not being a large contributor to those teams, is an idea that should die in the very conceptual stages.

The main thing, though, is DeRosa flat out wins. He wins big.

And yet, while DeRosa wins big, I can't help but shake the feeling I am losing big in reading this column.

Well, his team generally does.

I know when he played for Atlanta from 1998-2004, DeRosa was the catalyst for the Braves division title streak. Without DeRosa on the roster, I'm not sure Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz or Chipper Jones could have done their jobs effectively.

Then DeRosa went to Texas where he didn't make the playoffs in the two years he was there.

After leaving Texas he went to Chicago and was the very reason the Cubs won the NL Central both years he was there (snark aside, these were DeRosa's best two years in the majors). 

Then DeRosa made the playoffs in 2009 with the Cardinals.

In 2010, DeRosa's 93 at-bats were the very reason the Giants won the World Series.

In 2011, the Giants didn't make the playoffs and last year in Washington he led the Nationals to the playoffs with his 85 at-bats and .188/.300/.247 line.

So after the Blue Jays enticed DeRosa in January to sign a free-agent deal worth $775,000 -- with a club option in 2014 for the same amount -- you pretty much knew Toronto was returning to the playoffs this season for the first time in 20 years.

Except for they aren't on track to make the playoffs for the first time in 20 years at this point. It's probably because DeRosa isn't playing enough. If he could just play some more playing time he would turn the entire Blue Jays team around. Why is Edwin Encarnacion getting all the at-bats at third base? Jose Reyes? More like Jose Why Is He Getting At-Bats?

I mean, DeRosa played for the Washington Nationals last season, and they became the first Major League baseball team in the District of Columbia to reach the playoffs since 1933.

This had nothing to do with Jordan Zimmerman, Gio Gonzalez, Ryan Zimmerman, Stephen Strasburg, Bryce Harper or any of the regular National starters. It is because DeRosa got the chance to hit .188 and strike out 18 times in his 85 at-bats. He's a proven winner and it is impossible to prove that statement wrong.

What's weird is that for such a winner, DeRosa's teams and ex-teams make it to the World Series a lot without him on the active roster. The Giants seem to have an easy time winning a World Series without him on the roster. He was injured in 2010 and didn't participate in the World Series (though I am sure the morale support he gave was unparalleled) and then he played for the Nationals when the Giants won the World Series last year. The Braves didn't win a World Series with DeRosa on the roster and neither did the Cubs. The Rangers couldn't even make the playoffs with DeRosa on the roster and now they have appeared in back-to-back World Series. He played for the Cardinals in 2009, but they didn't win the World Series until 2011. DeRosa is a big winner, except when he is not on the roster his teams have a better chance of winning the World Series.

It's almost like DeRosa's previous teams generally play better AFTER he has signed with another team. Maybe DeRosa isn't a big winner, but actually a loser who holds back his teams from winning at a higher level?

During his first year in town, the Giants won a World Series championship for the first time since they moved west from New York during the Eisenhower Administration.

Except DeRosa was injured and didn't play after May of that season. So his assistance in helping the Giants win the World Series remains in question.

Before that, DeRosa began the 2009 season with the struggling Cleveland Indians, but he ended with the surging St. Louis Cardinals, eventual winners of the NL Central.

But once DeRosa left the Cardinals for the Giants in 2011, the Cardinals won the World Series again.

Then there were DeRosa's Texas Rangers teams of 2005-06 that couldn't survive controversy and shoddy pitching.

These Rangers teams also started winning games after DeRosa left to play for another team. Perhaps the Blue Jays should trade DeRosa so he can't hold the team back from winning games.

Those were fluke years for DeRosa, because before that, he spent his first seven seasons in the Majors with Atlanta Braves teams constructed around tranquility and pitching. They never missed the playoffs during his stay on their rosters.

They never missed the playoffs, but they also never won the World Series. In fact, the more at-bats DeRosa got for the Braves the worse the team did in the playoffs.

1999: 8 at-bats and the Braves make the World Series.
2000: 13 at-bats and the Braves lose in the NLDS.
2001: 164 at-bats and the Braves lose in the NLCS.
2002: 212 at-bats and the Braves lose in the NLDS.
2003: 266 at-bats and the Braves lose in the NLDS.
2004: 309 at-bats and the Braves lose in the NLDS.

It's like the more DeRosa plays the worse the team does as compared to when he plays less or isn't on the roster. The Cubs are really the only example of a team playing better with him on the roster. I'm not being tongue-in-cheek just to point out how full of shit Terence Moore is either.

There must be a secret here.

Yes, sign Mark DeRosa and hope he gets injured or trade him so you can win the World Series in the near future.

"That pitching always gave the offence a chance,

"Offence"? Is Terence Moore British now?

If you add those Cy Young Award winners to some splendid defence, timely hitting and DeRosa in the clubhouse, it contributed to the Braves' record string of 14 consecutive division titles.

Seriously, why is Terence spelling "offense" and "defense" using the British form?

I need to fix this sentence before I can move on: 

"If you add those Cy Young Award winners to some splendid defence, timely hitting and Bobby Cox in the clubhouse, it contributed to the Braves' record string of 14 consecutive division titles."

There, now I feel like this sentence is much more accurate.

Not so much in Texas, where the Rangers were in a transitional period before their current run of success.

But DeRosa is a winner! He wins games, that's all he does! You mean Mark DeRosa can't be a winner if the team around him isn't any good? Doesn't that mean the team around DeRosa determines whether he is a winner or not, so Mark DeRosa is part of a team that wins and isn't a winner by himself?

"Sitting there for two years watching an offence score five to seven, eight, 10 runs per game and losing, I don't know. That was sort of the antithesis of what I just came from in Atlanta."

You can't expect Mark DeRosa to win games. He's a guy who literally plays every position on the field, but he can't pitch...even though that is literally a position on the field DeRosa supposedly can play.

Then it was off to Chicago.

DeRosa smiled.

"Chicago is when I went for the money, because it was first time in my career I had a chance to do that,"

This isn't the last time DeRosa went to a team purely for the money. He signed a two year $12 million contract with the Giants whereupon he stole this money from the Giants by providing them with a line of .235/.313/.279 with 1 home run and 22 RBI's in 179 at-bats over two seasons. You wouldn't think a player could be lauded so much for essentially underachieving and stealing money for terrible production (due to injuries), but Mark DeRosa is still a hero to Terence Moore.

"I wish I had been healthy in San Francisco, but what an experience to watch all of that happen and to get a ring," said DeRosa, who spent much of that season battling a bad wrist.

And the Giants played well even though Mark DeRosa didn't play after May. That's how much of a winner Mark DeRosa is. His team actually plays better when he is not playing and is simply providing morale support, especially when DeRosa is on the bench of another team.

An oblique injury hindered DeRosa's stay with the Nationals, but his influence on his teammates was huge.

As seen from this year when DeRosa is healthy, I think it was his talent level that is what really hindered his stay with Washington. If I were searching for something nice to say about DeRosa I would say he is still versatile in what positions he can play on the field.

Speaking of pitching, the Blue Jays are struggling at the moment with the fourth-worst ERA in baseball at 4.77, but they still have DeRosa.

Which means they need to make sure Bautista, Encarnacion, Reyes. Rasmus, and Lind stay healthy so DeRosa doesn't have to play a lot?

Which means they need to make a trade to improve their bench?

Which means they should try to teach DeRosa to pitch so they can get some sort of value out of him? (I'm kidding of course, his value is his versatility, his winning smile and the fact the players around him are winners)

Which mean they still remain dangerous.

The Blue Jays still remain dangerous because they have Adam Lind, Jose Bautista, Edwin Encarnacion, J.P. Arencibia, Brett Lawrie, Jose Reyes, R.A. Dickey, Mark Buehrle, Josh Johnson, and Brandon Morrow. The only thing that is dangerous about the Blue Jays is if they have to rely too much on Mark "The Hero" DeRosa for an extended period of time.