Ben Sheets (Was Sheets Signs with A's)

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

One guy does not equal a "negative clubhouse," especially when all things seem to indicate that his "negativity" amounted to him not wanting to talk to his teammates. How does that destroy all of the chemistry that EVERYONE ELSE has with each other? And how does a negative clubhouse impact performance? Do you really think they're distracted by Milton Bradley not wanting to talk to them when it comes time for them to hit or make a play?

 

Is a positive clubhouse environment ideal? Of course. My issue is with the idea that one guy not hanging out with everyone else has the ability to shatter everyone's confidence and attitude and cause the team to do poorly to the point they're losing games, especially when there are multiple other glaring (and much more realistic) reasons as to why the team did poorly.

[Lefty]

If team "chemistry" is affected, it will manifest itself on the field, no? If Bradley is a cancer, someone is going to take that on the field and perform below his true level. Why do we blame Bradley when the affected player underperforms? Who on the Cubs last year performed poorly because of Bradley's presence? And why does that/those player(s) get a pass?

[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.

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

If you meant something different than what you said, then that's a you problem.

 

I think you meant to ask, does a baseball player understand statistics better than a statistician. I would expect the answer to be no.

[Guest]

Surely, the team expert (Theriot) on value/devalue of bad clubhouse chemistry should have had an extremely worse season than the previous year since Milton Bradley wasn't on the team the previous year.

 

All that I can see that it really affected Theriot, however, is less hits and walks. His SLG was up, stolen base percentage about the same, errors about the same, he sacrificed more, hit into less double plays and he got nailed twice as much at the plate.

 

All I can conclude from this is that Milton Bradley has a way of affecting Theriot's ability to draw walks and hit balls through the holes in the infield.

 

Or maybe Milton Bradley's presence didn't have anything at all to do with how much better/worse Theriot performed, but rather how much fun it was to go out for steaks and beer after the game.

[davell]

I see football and basketball as being MUCH more team-oriented and chemistry related sports than baseball. There is a ton of individualality to baseball. If Theriot doesn't cover second on a steal attempt, he can't blame Milton. If Theriot watches 3 pitches down the middle go by, it's really hard to say it's Milton's fault, even if he's mooning him from the dugout. It's really easy for me to come up with instances in football or basketball to where you can do something little and it doesn't get magnified, because there's always more than JUST that going on. It's just not the case in baseball. It's pretty easy to tell if someone's dogging it in the field, on the bases, or even up to bat. Chemistry DOES matter some and I know it can't be quantified exactly how much, but I would truly be shocked if our "poor" chemistry cost us more than a game or two at the absolute most last year.

[Guest]

I see football and basketball as being MUCH more team-oriented and chemistry related sports than baseball. There is a ton of individualality to baseball. If Theriot doesn't cover second on a steal attempt, he can't blame Milton. If Theriot watches 3 pitches down the middle go by, it's really hard to say it's Milton's fault, even if he's mooning him from the dugout. It's really easy for me to come up with instances in football or basketball to where you can do something little and it doesn't get magnified, because there's always more than JUST that going on. It's just not the case in baseball. It's pretty easy to tell if someone's dogging it in the field, on the bases, or even up to bat. Chemistry DOES matter some and I know it can't be quantified exactly how much, but I would truly be shocked if our "poor" chemistry cost us more than a game or two at the absolute most last year.

 

A fair point that it might matter some. However, if it costs you a game or two at the absolute most, wouldn't you more than likely get back that game or two from poor chemistry in the opposing team's dugout? You know, sorta like winning half of your season's games by 1 run. The other teams benefited from the other half of those 1 run games.

[Sammy Sofa]

I see football and basketball as being MUCH more team-oriented and chemistry related sports than baseball. There is a ton of individualality to baseball. If Theriot doesn't cover second on a steal attempt, he can't blame Milton. If Theriot watches 3 pitches down the middle go by, it's really hard to say it's Milton's fault, even if he's mooning him from the dugout. It's really easy for me to come up with instances in football or basketball to where you can do something little and it doesn't get magnified, because there's always more than JUST that going on. It's just not the case in baseball. It's pretty easy to tell if someone's dogging it in the field, on the bases, or even up to bat. Chemistry DOES matter some and I know it can't be quantified exactly how much, but I would truly be shocked if our "poor" chemistry cost us more than a game or two at the absolute most last year.

 

Right. And it makes sense that guys can have their performances impacted by off-field happenings. Guys like Dempster and Lee delaing with serious health issues with their children, of course that's going to weigh heavily on them. Lower down on the scale I can see things in the clubhouse potentially playing over onto the field if they escalate to a serious degree. Again, along the lines of guys constantly at each others' throats (literally or metaphorically) or serious rifts amongst different players or groups of players or situations where it's essentially the players vs. the coaches or the manager could easily have a serious impact on how the season goes. That said, we've seen zero indication that this was the case here. In fact, in the few players who have spoken on the issue, particuarly Theriot, have gone out of their way to emphasized hoe everyone except one person get along great, so it's not like an issue of one guy somehow fracturing the team and making everyone fight with each other. The reason I dismiss the idea that "chemistry" had any serious impact last season is because from the insiders themselves it sounds nothing more than one guy not liking anyone else and basically everyone else not liking that guy. That's not a lack of chemistry. That's one guy as the odd man out. That still leaves the entire rest of the team to get along great, which supposedly they do and act as a team. Trying to imply that one sulky guy can destroy all of that to the point that guys are playing poorly and games are being lost is ridiculous.

[davearm2]

I see football and basketball as being MUCH more team-oriented and chemistry related sports than baseball. There is a ton of individualality to baseball. If Theriot doesn't cover second on a steal attempt, he can't blame Milton. If Theriot watches 3 pitches down the middle go by, it's really hard to say it's Milton's fault, even if he's mooning him from the dugout. It's really easy for me to come up with instances in football or basketball to where you can do something little and it doesn't get magnified, because there's always more than JUST that going on. It's just not the case in baseball. It's pretty easy to tell if someone's dogging it in the field, on the bases, or even up to bat. Chemistry DOES matter some and I know it can't be quantified exactly how much, but I would truly be shocked if our "poor" chemistry cost us more than a game or two at the absolute most last year.

 

A fair point that it might matter some. However, if it costs you a game or two at the absolute most, wouldn't you more than likely get back that game or two from poor chemistry in the opposing team's dugout? You know, sorta like winning half of your season's games by 1 run. The other teams benefited from the other half of those 1 run games.

That's like saying having a crappy #5 starter is OK because so does the other team.

 

Well you can gain an advantage on the other team if your #5 starter isn't crappy. So let's strive to have a good #5 starter.

 

And by the same principle let's strive to gain games based on good chemistry rather than give them away based on bad chemistry.

[Guest]

I see football and basketball as being MUCH more team-oriented and chemistry related sports than baseball. There is a ton of individualality to baseball. If Theriot doesn't cover second on a steal attempt, he can't blame Milton. If Theriot watches 3 pitches down the middle go by, it's really hard to say it's Milton's fault, even if he's mooning him from the dugout. It's really easy for me to come up with instances in football or basketball to where you can do something little and it doesn't get magnified, because there's always more than JUST that going on. It's just not the case in baseball. It's pretty easy to tell if someone's dogging it in the field, on the bases, or even up to bat. Chemistry DOES matter some and I know it can't be quantified exactly how much, but I would truly be shocked if our "poor" chemistry cost us more than a game or two at the absolute most last year.

 

A fair point that it might matter some. However, if it costs you a game or two at the absolute most, wouldn't you more than likely get back that game or two from poor chemistry in the opposing team's dugout? You know, sorta like winning half of your season's games by 1 run. The other teams benefited from the other half of those 1 run games.

That's like saying having a crappy #5 starter is OK because so does the other team.

 

Well you can gain an advantage on the other team if your #5 starter isn't crappy. So let's strive to have a good #5 starter.

 

And by the same principle let's strive to gain games based on good chemistry rather than give them away based on bad chemistry.

 

I could get on board with that principle. If two players of equal ability are available, I'd probably prefer the guy who doesn't mouth off over the guy who does.

 

However, when the difference is Bradley and his mouth and Silva and his rather generic resume', I think you gotta tough it out and tell guys like Theriot to deal with it rather than cater to his wishes of playing patty cakes in the clubhouse. Having a lesser talented player on the field can cost you a lot more games.

[davell]

I see football and basketball as being MUCH more team-oriented and chemistry related sports than baseball. There is a ton of individualality to baseball. If Theriot doesn't cover second on a steal attempt, he can't blame Milton. If Theriot watches 3 pitches down the middle go by, it's really hard to say it's Milton's fault, even if he's mooning him from the dugout. It's really easy for me to come up with instances in football or basketball to where you can do something little and it doesn't get magnified, because there's always more than JUST that going on. It's just not the case in baseball. It's pretty easy to tell if someone's dogging it in the field, on the bases, or even up to bat. Chemistry DOES matter some and I know it can't be quantified exactly how much, but I would truly be shocked if our "poor" chemistry cost us more than a game or two at the absolute most last year.

 

A fair point that it might matter some. However, if it costs you a game or two at the absolute most, wouldn't you more than likely get back that game or two from poor chemistry in the opposing team's dugout? You know, sorta like winning half of your season's games by 1 run. The other teams benefited from the other half of those 1 run games.

That's like saying having a crappy #5 starter is OK because so does the other team.

 

Well you can gain an advantage on the other team if your #5 starter isn't crappy. So let's strive to have a good #5 starter.

 

And by the same principle let's strive to gain games based on good chemistry rather than give them away based on bad chemistry.

 

Yes, I do think that the chemistry thing could very easily go both ways. I'm sure that other teams have some issues as well, so to say that that kind of evens out over the long run could very well be correct. If not, and our team truly is or was, the mess of all messes, I still don't see how it affects us in actual quantified game losses all that much.

 

On the other hand, if we had the money to get a true 1, 2 or even 3 starter to place against another teams 5 each and every start for the season, I think that WOULD make a hell of a difference as far as wins and losses goes. From those games in which said 1,2, or 3 started all the way down to the fact you'd expect him to pitch further into games, to where your pen was more rested as well, giving you an advantage during other games as well. Comparing the two doesn't seem to make any sense to me anyway......

[CUBZ99]

I see football and basketball as being MUCH more team-oriented and chemistry related sports than baseball. There is a ton of individualality to baseball. If Theriot doesn't cover second on a steal attempt, he can't blame Milton. If Theriot watches 3 pitches down the middle go by, it's really hard to say it's Milton's fault, even if he's mooning him from the dugout. It's really easy for me to come up with instances in football or basketball to where you can do something little and it doesn't get magnified, because there's always more than JUST that going on. It's just not the case in baseball. It's pretty easy to tell if someone's dogging it in the field, on the bases, or even up to bat. Chemistry DOES matter some and I know it can't be quantified exactly how much, but I would truly be shocked if our "poor" chemistry cost us more than a game or two at the absolute most last year.

 

Right. And it makes sense that guys can have their performances impacted by off-field happenings. Guys like Dempster and Lee delaing with serious health issues with their children, of course that's going to weigh heavily on them. Lower down on the scale I can see things in the clubhouse potentially playing over onto the field if they escalate to a serious degree. Again, along the lines of guys constantly at each others' throats (literally or metaphorically) or serious rifts amongst different players or groups of players or situations where it's essentially the players vs. the coaches or the manager could easily have a serious impact on how the season goes. That said, we've seen zero indication that this was the case here. In fact, in the few players who have spoken on the issue, particuarly Theriot, have gone out of their way to emphasized hoe everyone except one person get along great, so it's not like an issue of one guy somehow fracturing the team and making everyone fight with each other. The reason I dismiss the idea that "chemistry" had any serious impact last season is because from the insiders themselves it sounds nothing more than one guy not liking anyone else and basically everyone else not liking that guy. That's not a lack of chemistry. That's one guy as the odd man out. That still leaves the entire rest of the team to get along great, which supposedly they do and act as a team. Trying to imply that one sulky guy can destroy all of that to the point that guys are playing poorly and games are being lost is ridiculous.

 

To be fair, it was one guy that reportedly made life miserable for the rest of the team.

 

Also, the comments I have heard about Bradley all indicate that almost the entire team did not enjoy having him around. Yet, nobody was blaming Bradley's poor attitude for the Cubs failure to make the playoffs last year. Most if not all of the comments that I've read say that people are just happy or relieved to be rid of him, and they all qualified their statements by saying that he wasn't the problem in regard to why they didn't win more.

 

I don't see a problem with the GM or the Owners trying to make the players happier during the season or making them more comfortable. They are redoing the locker room to give the players more space, they are hiring a chef to cater during games, etc.

 

In regard to Bradley, the Cubs didn't win with him last year, and it wasn't like he was a major part of the team offense or defense. He put up decent numbers, which were nearly identical to the player they brought in to replace him. And Byrd plays CF, allowing Fukudome to return to RF hopefully upgrading the defense in the OF.

[Guest]

Theriot's latest ramblings weren't even about Bradley. They were about Sheets. Theriot's only concerns seem to be how much joy he can bring to the clubhouse. It doesn't matter whether his right arm is still attached at the shoulder, because according to Theriot, the thing that decides wins and losses is the joy level in the clubhouse.

 

If Theriot wants to volunteer to be the team spokesman, maybe he should think about being more careful in how he represents the views of the team.

 

It's okay to say that Milton was a distraction. It's not okay to make people believe that the Cubs didn't win because Milton was a distraction.

 

It's okay to want Ben Sheets if his arm proves to be healthy. It's not okay to say that the Cubs minus Milton Bradley and plus Ben Sheets will make the clubhouse more enjoyable for everyone. No one cares if you aren't enjoying yourself in the clubhouse. They care about how the team performs on the field.

[FergieJ31]

Theriot's latest ramblings weren't even about Bradley. They were about Sheets. Theriot's only concerns seem to be how much joy he can bring to the clubhouse. It doesn't matter whether his right arm is still attached at the shoulder, because according to Theriot, the thing that decides wins and losses is the joy level in the clubhouse.

 

Please tell us where Theriot says anything of the sort - that "the thing that decides wins and losses is the joy level in the clubhouse".

[CUBZ99]

Theriot's latest ramblings weren't even about Bradley. They were about Sheets. Theriot's only concerns seem to be how much joy he can bring to the clubhouse. It doesn't matter whether his right arm is still attached at the shoulder, because according to Theriot, the thing that decides wins and losses is the joy level in the clubhouse.

 

Please tell us where Theriot says anything of the sort - that "the thing that decides wins and losses is the joy level in the clubhouse".

 

Exactly, I think the Theriot hate is getting a little out of control. he isn't allowed to have an opinion regarding other players? I'm 100% positive that Jim Hendry isn't going to base his decision of whether to sign Sheets on whether Theriot thinks he is a good clubhouse guy or not.

[Guest]

Theriot's latest ramblings weren't even about Bradley. They were about Sheets. Theriot's only concerns seem to be how much joy he can bring to the clubhouse. It doesn't matter whether his right arm is still attached at the shoulder, because according to Theriot, the thing that decides wins and losses is the joy level in the clubhouse.

 

Please tell us where Theriot says anything of the sort - that "the thing that decides wins and losses is the joy level in the clubhouse".

 

"But from a clubhouse standpoint, (he's a) very intricate, nice fellow, and brings kind of a different feel to the clubhouse.

 

"(He's) someone I would welcome with open arms, not because I've known him for a long time, but he brings a 'Scott Eyre feel' to the clubhouse -- a light, funny, keep-everyone-on-their-toes type of feeling."

 

Maybe you don't mind the team spokesperson putting this much emphasis on how warm and cozy the clubhouse is, but I prefer the team spokesperson put more emphasis on the importance of their value on the playing field. You know, where games are actually played.

 

I'm convinced at this point that Theriot will personally be happier with Silva on the team over Bradley, even if it means losing more games over the course of a season. Heaven forbid some teammate of Theriots farts in his general direction. Theriot's happiness should take precedent over the team's success. :thumbsup:

[dew1679666265]

Theriot's latest ramblings weren't even about Bradley. They were about Sheets. Theriot's only concerns seem to be how much joy he can bring to the clubhouse. It doesn't matter whether his right arm is still attached at the shoulder, because according to Theriot, the thing that decides wins and losses is the joy level in the clubhouse.

 

Please tell us where Theriot says anything of the sort - that "the thing that decides wins and losses is the joy level in the clubhouse".

 

"But from a clubhouse standpoint, (he's a) very intricate, nice fellow, and brings kind of a different feel to the clubhouse.

 

"(He's) someone I would welcome with open arms, not because I've known him for a long time, but he brings a 'Scott Eyre feel' to the clubhouse -- a light, funny, keep-everyone-on-their-toes type of feeling."

 

Maybe you don't mind the team spokesperson putting this much emphasis on how warm and cozy the clubhouse is, but I prefer the team spokesperson put more emphasis on the importance of their value on the playing field. You know, where games are actually played.

 

I'm convinced at this point that Theriot will personally be happier with Silva on the team over Bradley, even if it means losing more games over the course of a season. Heaven forbid some teammate of Theriots farts in his general direction. Theriot's happiness should take precedent over the team's success. :thumbsup:

 

Theriot doesn't say a thing there about wins and losses or overall success of the team. He's simply commenting on how he enjoys being around Sheets and likes him. I don't see anything about that statement that implies he thinks the Cubs will win more or less because he likes Sheets.

 

And going by the "But" at the beginning of his statement, it appears he said something else before the quoted statement. I have no idea what he said, but it's possible he said something about Sheets' value on the field in that portion of his comment.

[Rob]

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

 

Because in order to prove that all clubhouses will react negatively to a negative chemistry, it must be proven that you don't have a team full of guys who thrive under the discord. As long as you admit that some will react positively, there's always a chance (and one that neither you nor I has any way of quantifying) that the full clubhouse will have enough of that type of player to get a net positive effect from negative chemistry.

 

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

 

Only if it isn't helping the team more than hurting it.

 

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.

 

I've you've already conceded that some players perform better under those circumstances, that's the same as conceding that in all likelihood there have already been teams where that negative clubhouse translated positively on the field, and that there are likely to be teams in that same vein going forward.

 

I think my purpose in that previous post are being confused by some. I'm not trying to say anything about chemistry except that none of us are in any position to judge what is going on. Chemistry may have helped our team, hurt our team, or made no difference whatsoever. And unfortunately, guys like Ryan Theriot who actually have to live through it are probably a little too close to the action for their opinions about the effects of chemistry to be unbiased.

 

We don't know. And we wont know. Those pretending to have any idea are only fooling themselves.

[davearm2]

You're not serious about pursuing an argument that poor chemistry actually improves on-the-field performance, are you?

[Rob]

I didn't wish to add this to the previous post in fear that it might detract from the message of my argument, but I think as Cubs fans we may all find it relevant.

 

Joe Tinker and Johnny Evers are two names every Cubs fan worth his salt should know. They were the HOF members of our keystone combo while the Cubs were still considered a dynasty back at the beginning of the 1900s. In mid september of 1905, the two got into a fistfight and didn't talk to each other again for more than 30 years, despite playing right next to each other for many of those years. I think we all know how the next three seasons went.

 

1906 - Went 116-36, setting records that still stand for the most wins in a single season (tied with the 2001 Mariners), and the highest winning percentage in baseball history.

1907 - World Champions

1908 - World Champions

 

This isn't to make a judgment that the team performed better because of the profoundly negative chemistry. No. It's simply meant to illustrate a single point:

 

There are much more important things to consider than chemistry when constructing a ballclub.

[dew1679666265]

You're not serious about pursuing an argument that poor chemistry actually improves on-the-field performance, are you?

 

I don't know if poor chemistry improves on-field performance, but teams can win with bad chemistry. It's just one example, but the '77 Yankees won the World Series with a locker room that did not get along at all.

 

To me, bad chemistry has much more to do with bringing in free agents and retaining your own free agents than with on-field performance (in baseball at least). On-field performance is probably affected much more in football and basketball, etc.

[Rob]

You're not serious about pursuing an argument that poor chemistry actually improves on-the-field performance, are you?

 

Try reading my post. The important bits at the bottom are where I say how I feel about the subject.

[Soul]

Theriot is bringing my level of joy down right now. Perhaps we should get rid of him.

[wvcbxl]

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.

If you meant something different than what you said, then that's a you problem.

 

I think you meant to ask, does a baseball player understand statistics better than a statistician. I would expect the answer to be no.

 

Good man.

Now apply the same logic to psychology, more specifically the effects of "negativity" on performance. 8-)

[CUBZ99]

Theriot is bringing my level of joy down right now. Perhaps we should get rid of him.

 

He sure got ribbed at the Convention on the radio interview I heard. Someone, Hendry or Flieta, pointed out to Theriot that Starlin Castro was looking pretty good coming into spring training. :-))

 

I think people are a little too sensitive regarding Theriot's comments, considering how benign they were.

[FergieJ31]

I think people are a little too sensitive regarding Theriot's comments, considering how benign they were.

 

Exactly.

 

It's tempting to try to put words in Theriot's mouth regarding his comments about Sheets. But nowhere does he say or even imply that good chemistry => winning.

 

The comment BigBadB quoted was benign - something anyone could say about their job: would you rather work with good guys or jerks?