Ben Sheets (Was Sheets Signs with A's)

[Sammy Sofa]

That's what I thought.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm going to head out to ULM but it won't be until about 1:45 or 2:00. I've heard he's throwing at 12:30, so I'm sure it's going to be done before I get there. I'll try to notice if I see anyone I recognize from the Cubs. I'd recognize Hendry or Bush if they come, but I'm not certain if they would be there or if they'd just send a scout that I wouldn't recognize anyway.

[Cubswin11]

The Blue Jays will have a scout at tomorrow's workout by free-agent pitcher Ben Sheets, but he's all but signed by the Chicago Cubs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/jays-gm-sticks-to-his-guns/article1434416/

Take it for what it's worth.

Hopefully it's true, just not for the $10-12m he wants a year.

[davearm2]

That's what I thought.

I'm assuming a guy who's spent his entire adult life playing, practicing, eating, showering, traveling, and just generally hanging out with 20 or so other ballplayers for ~8 months at a time knows more about clubhouse dynamics than some anonymous fan on the internet.

 

If that's what you thought, then you were right all along.

[Sammy Sofa]

So you fully buy into the idea that single person negates the clubhouse chemistry of everyone else in the clubhouse even if everyone except that one person people get along? And not only that, but to the point that that one person actually disrupts their play and causes them to lose games?

 

I'll wait to see if you can actually back up your point with an argument beyond "he's a baseball player and you're not."

[davearm2]

So you fully buy into the idea that single person negates the clubhouse chemistry of everyone else in the clubhouse even if everyone except that one person people get along? And not only that, but to the point that that one person actually disrupts their play and causes them to lose games?

 

I'll wait to see if you can actually back up your point with an argument beyond "he's a baseball player and you're not."

Who said these things? Not me. And not Theriot, to my knowledge.

[Sammy Sofa]

So you fully buy into the idea that single person negates the clubhouse chemistry of everyone else in the clubhouse even if everyone except that one person people get along? And not only that, but to the point that that one person actually disrupts their play and causes them to lose games?

 

I'll wait to see if you can actually back up your point with an argument beyond "he's a baseball player and you're not."

Who said these things? Not me. And not Theriot, to my knowledge.

 

Then it's meaningless. If it's "chemistry" then that implies that it has some kind of cause and effect in terms of some or even all of the players' performances. If not, then it's just everyone not liking one guy (and/or vice-versa) and that's it and it's irrelevant. If there's no impact on performance then it should amount to "tough [expletive], you don't always get to like everyone you work with" and comments like Theriot's are irrelevant and unnecessary. As it stands, it's definitely been all but explicitly stated that Bradley's presence and attitude had a detrimental effect on the team's performance and that's why he had to go so therefore that is the clear context of Theriot's comments. You don't just bench and then trade someone and then have other players trying to diplomatically justify what happened when someone is simply being a jerk.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

they're comfortable with randy wells being the 3rd best starter for the first month of the season? or as randy wells being the 4th best starter for the entire season?

 

yikes

 

There's a strong consensus with projections that Wells will be around a 4.15 FIP for about 160 IP this year. That's about a 2.5 WAR, and puts him among the Top 50 SP from last year. I will take that from the 3rd-4th best starter in my rotation.

[davearm2]

So you fully buy into the idea that single person negates the clubhouse chemistry of everyone else in the clubhouse even if everyone except that one person people get along? And not only that, but to the point that that one person actually disrupts their play and causes them to lose games?

 

I'll wait to see if you can actually back up your point with an argument beyond "he's a baseball player and you're not."

Who said these things? Not me. And not Theriot, to my knowledge.

 

Then it's meaningless. If it's "chemistry" then that implies that it has some kind of cause and effect in terms of some or even all of the players' performances. If not, then it's just everyone not liking one guy (and/or vice-versa) and that's it and it's irrelevant. If there's no impact on performance then it should amount to "tough [expletive], you don't always get to like everyone you work with" and comments like Theriot's are irrelevant and unnecessary. As it stands, it's definitely been all but explicitly stated that Bradley's presence and attitude had a detrimental effect on the team's performance and that's why he had to go so therefore that is the clear context of Theriot's comments. You don't just bench and then trade someone and then have other players trying to diplomatically justify what happened when someone is simply being a jerk.

You say chemistry's meaningless. Theriot and other Cubs say it isn't meaningless.

 

Now I fully believe neither side can be proven. Sabermetricians haven't come up with a clubhouse WARP statistic, and they probably never will.

 

The problem comes when folks assume that since there is no clubhouse WARP stat, then that in and of itself provides proof that chemistry is a myth.

 

So having said that all that, I do find it somewhat hilarious that some dude posting on the internet thinks he knows more about this phenomenon than the folks that live it every day.

[Guest]

Do you believe a saber person might have a better understanding of baseball metrics than someone who lives it every day?

[davearm2]

Do you believe a saber person might have a better understanding of baseball metrics than someone who lives it every day?

Um, someone who lives baseball metrics every day *is* a sabermetrician.

[mhuber92211]

Then it's meaningless. If it's "chemistry" then that implies that it has some kind of cause and effect in terms of some or even all of the players' performances. If not, then it's just everyone not liking one guy (and/or vice-versa) and that's it and it's irrelevant. If there's no impact on performance then it should amount to "tough [expletive], you don't always get to like everyone you work with" and comments like Theriot's are irrelevant and unnecessary. As it stands, it's definitely been all but explicitly stated that Bradley's presence and attitude had a detrimental effect on the team's performance and that's why he had to go so therefore that is the clear context of Theriot's comments. You don't just bench and then trade someone and then have other players trying to diplomatically justify what happened when someone is simply being a jerk.

 

Have you ever taken a basic communication class or studied small group communication? Clearly not. Everything you say here about chemistry is so ignorant. Basic communication theory and small group communication is extremely important when managing or dealing with other people. It makes me pity the other people in your life that you feel that your communication or "Chemistry" with the other person is as you state "Meaningless".

[SouthSideRyan]

YEAH WHAT ARE YOUR BALLPLAYER CREDENTIALS

Well if a Cubs' player and an internet poster are expressing opposing views on the nature of the Cubs' clubhouse, there is indeed a credibility issue to consider.

 

Ryan Theriot is probably an idiot, and Mojo probably isn't. When old school managers talk about the need for small ball, am I not allowed to question them because they're a baseball manager and I'm not? Obviously they'd know what wins game? When a GM says RBI is the stat he values most, do I assume I must be the idiot for discounting it since he's a professional GM and I'm not?

 

That crazy positive clubhouse force, Scott Eyre was a part of the embarrassing 2006 team. Somehow the Cubs record improved in 2008 after the lovable scamp was traded away to Philly.

Edited January 18, 2010 by SouthSideRyan

[Sammy Sofa]

You say chemistry's meaningless. Theriot and other Cubs say it isn't meaningless.

 

So what does it "mean?" Is he saying that it effects onfield performance if one person is a jerk yet everyone else gets along? If you think so, do you agree with that?

 

Now I fully believe neither side can be proven. Sabermetricians haven't come up with a clubhouse WARP statistic, and they probably never will.

 

Of course not, because such a thing would be absurd.

 

The problem comes when folks assume that since there is no clubhouse WARP stat, then that in and of itself provides proof that chemistry is a myth.

 

That's hardly the reason why many assume that it is largely meaningless rhetoric. That's also not saying it's impossible for clubhouse chemistry to effect a team. If guys are attacking each other in the clubhouse left and right and there are huge rifts and divisons between the players and/or coaches where people are screaming at each other and flipping [expletive] around I think it would a be a safe bet it would somehow effect the season. That said, I have serious doubts that one guy, who apparently didn't get along with everyone because he was a sulky and sullen jerk, has enough impact to actually effect the onfield performance of the entire team when everyone else apparently gets along great. That's a ridiculous conclusion.

 

So having said that all that, I do find it somewhat hilarious that some dude posting on the internet thinks he knows more about this phenomenon than the folks that live it every day.

 

I'm simply examining it with common sense. I've yet to see an argument that can explain how one Milton Bradley can detrimentally effect the entire Cubs roster when they're playing the gamewhen they keep saying that everyone gets along so well. It's an absurd conclusion and it's absurd to think the word of a pro athlete is some kind of proof that needs to overcome. What, are we supposed to take their word that their individual rituals for good luck actually work simply because they decide that they do? Of course not. Ryan Theriot is just paying lip service and blaming an easy target to curry favor with the dumb fans because if he came out and explained that the Cubs sucked because guys were hurt and the offense in general except for Lee underperformed it wouldn't nearly be as popular.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Sammy Sofa

[Sammy Sofa]

Have you ever taken a basic communication class or studied small group communication? Clearly not. Everything you say here about chemistry is so ignorant. Basic communication theory and small group communication is extremely important when managing or dealing with other people. It makes me pity the other people in your life that you feel that your communication or "Chemistry" with the other person is as you state "Meaningless".

 

It's meaingless in the context of these guys playing. How does Milton Bradley being a jerk have ANY bearing of another player stepping into the batter's box and trying to get a hit or throwing a pitch or making a play in the field? Here, I'll answer for you: NONE AT ALL.

 

My point is that the issue of Bradley liking everyone else or everyone liking Bradley is meaningless when it comes time to play. Milton Bradley isn't going to run up and yell nasty things at them or punch them in the throat when it's time to make a play or hit.

 

In the grand scheme of things it IS meaningless if only one guy out of a large group is a jerk and everyone else gets along. Explain to me how ONE guy is sabotaging EVERYONE else and causing them to lose games with his "lack of chemistry."

 

Spare me the nonsense of "pity" because I'm practical and wouldn't try to explain away bad work performance by me and the people around me because we didn't like one guy in the entire workspace and everyone else got along great.

[mhuber92211]

Have you ever taken a basic communication class or studied small group communication? Clearly not. Everything you say here about chemistry is so ignorant. Basic communication theory and small group communication is extremely important when managing or dealing with other people. It makes me pity the other people in your life that you feel that your communication or "Chemistry" with the other person is as you state "Meaningless".

 

It's meaingless in the context of these guys playing. How does Milton Bradley being a jerk have ANY bearing of another player stepping into the batter's box and trying to get a hit or throwing a pitch or making a play in the field? Here, I'll answer for you: NONE AT ALL.

 

My point is that the issue of Bradley liking everyone else or everyone liking Bradley is meaningless when it comes time to play. Milton Bradley isn't going to run up and yell nasty things at them or punch them in the throat when it's time to make a play or hit.

 

In the grand scheme of things it IS meaningless if only one guy out of a large group is a jerk and everyone else gets along. Explain to me how ONE guy is sabotaging EVERYONE else and causing them to lose games with his "lack of chemistry."

 

Spare me the nonsense of "pity" because I'm practical and wouldn't try to explain away bad work performance by me and the people around me because we didn't like one guy in the entire workspace and everyone else got along great.

 

So if your boss is a jerk and you truly do not like working for him, you would produce at the same level as if you had your dream job working for your best friend?

 

Are you a robot? Because only those who do not have feelings can say emotions have no effect on anything.

 

Why is this so important to you? Face it. Not everything can be explained by looking at numbers on a page. How people work together is a basic fact of how well they produce as a group. Perhaps this belief is why so many people are lonely. They must feel that they can be just as successful alone as they can by working with people. 2 heads are better than one - Proven fact, not just a cliche.

[Rob]

Being a baseball player is hardly the same thing as sitting in a bland cubicle struggling to merely stay awake all day, let alone do real work. Those of you assuming your real life experience can translate to them are every bit as mistaken as those you chastise.

 

And I make this challenge every time I hear these arguments pop up, but once more can't hurt.

 

I'm willing to concede that one player's attitude can affect the clubhouse chemistry. I'll also concede that chemistry may affect performance.

 

Now I'd like to hear a compelling case that negative chemistry causes all players to perform negatively. Don't forget to explain how greats like Barry Bonds, Albert Belle, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, and countless others through the years have seemed to perform at their best when everybody turns against them.

 

I don't think I need to spell this out, but I will anyways. When faced with a negative clubhouse, some players will perform poorly, while others will rise above it. Every player is different, and so by definition is every clubhouse. It's hardly unreasonable to suggest that none of us know the personalities of our team well enough to figure how each player will respond, and to what degree.

[mhuber92211]

Being a baseball player is hardly the same thing as sitting in a bland cubicle struggling to merely stay awake all day, let alone do real work. Those of you assuming your real life experience can translate to them are every bit as mistaken as those you chastise.

 

And I make this challenge every time I hear these arguments pop up, but once more can't hurt.

 

I'm willing to concede that one player's attitude can affect the clubhouse chemistry. I'll also concede that chemistry may affect performance.

 

Now I'd like to hear a compelling case that negative chemistry causes all players to perform negatively. Don't forget to explain how greats like Barry Bonds, Albert Belle, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, and countless others through the years have seemed to perform at their best when everybody turns against them.

 

I don't think I need to spell this out, but I will anyways. When faced with a negative clubhouse, some players will perform poorly, while others will rise above it. Every player is different, and so by definition is every clubhouse. It's hardly unreasonable to suggest that none of us know the personalities of our team well enough to figure how each player will respond, and to what degree.

 

How many World Series did your 4 examples win? Absolutely ZERO. Interesting argument there. So what you are saying is players that are noted as being the cause of negativity may create good careers for themselves but poor team (or group) success.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

[17 Seconds]

i think you might want to read his post again.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The Blue Jays will have a scout at tomorrow's workout by free-agent pitcher Ben Sheets, but he's all but signed by the Chicago Cubs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/jays-gm-sticks-to-his-guns/article1434416/

Take it for what it's worth.

Hopefully it's true, just not for the $10-12m he wants a year.

 

Im done taking stock in any of those types of statements. If there was any truth to those types of things, Brian Roberts, Jake Peavy, and Mike Cameron would all be Cubs by now.

[Soul]

The Blue Jays will have a scout at tomorrow's workout by free-agent pitcher Ben Sheets, but he's all but signed by the Chicago Cubs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/jays-gm-sticks-to-his-guns/article1434416/

Take it for what it's worth.

Hopefully it's true, just not for the $10-12m he wants a year.

 

Im done taking stock in any of those types of statements. If there was any truth to those types of things, Brian Roberts, Jake Peavy, and Mike Cameron would all be Cubs by now.

 

I'd like it to be true (for less than what he wants), but yeah it's just some guy writing stuff.

[Guest]

Do you believe a saber person might have a better understanding of baseball metrics than someone who lives it every day?

Um, someone who lives baseball metrics every day *is* a sabermetrician.

You know exactly what I meant. Won't say anything further to you if you insist upon misinterpreting everything.

[Sammy Sofa]

So if your boss is a jerk and you truly do not like working for him, you would produce at the same level as if you had your dream job working for your best friend?

 

So to make your point work you have to use a completely irrelevant analogy?

 

We're not talking about a boss or someone with authority here.

 

Are you a robot? Because only those who do not have feelings can say emotions have no effect on anything.

 

No, I say that because letting one person bother everyone else to the point where everyone else's onfield performances suffer despite the fact they all get along and it's only one person who is not buddy-buddy with everyone else isn't "chemistry." That's codependency on a crippling scale.

 

Why is this so important to you? Face it. Not everything can be explained by looking at numbers on a page. How people work together is a basic fact of how well they produce as a group. Perhaps this belief is why so many people are lonely. They must feel that they can be just as successful alone as they can by working with people. 2 heads are better than one - Proven fact, not just a cliche.

 

Because it's a total copout. One guy not getting along with everyone else doesn't destroy a team: that just makes it a team sans one guy. Everyone else gets along? Boom, there's your team. EVERYONE ELSE IS WORKING GREAT TOGETHER AS A GROUP. Milton Bradley not being friends with everyone else shouldn't be a crippling thing. If it is, the problem extends well beyond just Milton Bradley. Besides, if chemistry has such impact, negative or positive, why didn't they turn into worldbeaters after he was gone? Why did they stay the same underwhelming, mediocre team they had been all year?

[RedFlash]

The Blue Jays will have a scout at tomorrow's workout by free-agent pitcher Ben Sheets, but he's all but signed by the Chicago Cubs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/jays-gm-sticks-to-his-guns/article1434416/

Take it for what it's worth.

 

My question is....if Sheets is "all but signed by the Cubs" then why is he still doing a public workout? Wouldn't this be more of a private workout?

[davearm2]

Being a baseball player is hardly the same thing as sitting in a bland cubicle struggling to merely stay awake all day, let alone do real work. Those of you assuming your real life experience can translate to them are every bit as mistaken as those you chastise.

 

And I make this challenge every time I hear these arguments pop up, but once more can't hurt.

 

I'm willing to concede that one player's attitude can affect the clubhouse chemistry. I'll also concede that chemistry may affect performance.

 

Now I'd like to hear a compelling case that negative chemistry causes all players to perform negatively. Don't forget to explain how greats like Barry Bonds, Albert Belle, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, and countless others through the years have seemed to perform at their best when everybody turns against them.

 

I don't think I need to spell this out, but I will anyways. When faced with a negative clubhouse, some players will perform poorly, while others will rise above it. Every player is different, and so by definition is every clubhouse. It's hardly unreasonable to suggest that none of us know the personalities of our team well enough to figure how each player will respond, and to what degree.

Why do you need to hear a compelling case that negative chemistry causes *all* players to perform negatively?

 

You said it yourself: when faced with a negative clubhouse, *some* players will perform poorly. That's enough to have a problem, no?

 

I'd like to hear a compelling argument that a negative clubhouse has a net zero or net positive impact on the group as a whole.