Ben Sheets (Was Sheets Signs with A's)

[davearm2]

Nobody here (and likely not even the players themselves) has a [expletive] clue what effect a negative player in the clubhouse has on team performance.

I agree as it pertains to the posters here. I disagree as it pertains to the players and team officials that see and live the situation daily, although I'd readily admit that the relationship between clubhouse atmosphere and wins and losses is nebulous at best.

[Sammy Sofa]

If I'm confused, then it's easy to see why by looking at the bolded above. Sure seems like you're suggesting poor chemistry might improve a team's on-field performance.

 

It's just as valid a theory as suggesting that it is detrimental to their on-field performance given the evidence (or more accurately, the lack thereof). For all we know clubhouse conflict motitvates players to play harder/better in a "I'll show those motherfuckers" kind of way. Why is that any less realistic than suggesting that it causes them to play worse?

[Rob]

If I'm confused, then it's easy to see why by looking at the bolded above. Sure seems like you're suggesting poor chemistry might improve a team's on-field performance.

 

I'm willing to acknowledge that it's certainly a possibility. Do you disagree? Tell me where I lose you:

 

- One player could respond positively to a negative clubhouse

 

- A team is composed of more than one player

 

- If a team has more players who respond positively in a negative clubhouse than those who respond negatively, the net effect could be positive for that team

[UMFan83]

Can you guys stop talking about this? Blah

[Guest]

If I'm confused, then it's easy to see why by looking at the bolded above. Sure seems like you're suggesting poor chemistry might improve a team's on-field performance.

 

It's just as valid a theory as suggesting that it is detrimental to their on-field performance given the evidence (or more accurately, the lack thereof). For all we know clubhouse conflict motitvates players to play harder/better in a "I'll show those [expletive]" kind of way. Why is that any less realistic than suggesting that it causes them to play worse?

It worked for the A's in the 1970s. They had a saying, "25 guys, 25 cabs".

[Rob]

Nobody here (and likely not even the players themselves) has a [expletive] clue what effect a negative player in the clubhouse has on team performance.

I agree as it pertains to the posters here. I disagree as it pertains to the players and team officials that see and live the situation daily, although I'd readily admit that the relationship between clubhouse atmosphere and wins and losses is nebulous at best.

 

Put yourself in Theriot's shoes.

 

Let's pretend that while you're in the clubhouse eating a light breakfast, Milton Bradley walks up, unzips, and pisses in your cheerios. You are not happy.

 

In the next week you got 7 for 24 with 3 walks, a handful of strikeouts, and a couple doubles.

 

Are you going to think Milton helped you bat .292 by making you more focused and aggressive? Or are you going to think he kept you from batting .300?

[Sammy Sofa]

If I'm confused, then it's easy to see why by looking at the bolded above. Sure seems like you're suggesting poor chemistry might improve a team's on-field performance.

 

It's just as valid a theory as suggesting that it is detrimental to their on-field performance given the evidence (or more accurately, the lack thereof). For all we know clubhouse conflict motitvates players to play harder/better in a "I'll show those [expletive]" kind of way. Why is that any less realistic than suggesting that it causes them to play worse?

It worked for the A's in the 1970s. They had a saying, "25 guys, 25 cabs".

 

Wasn't the Big Red Machine a little rocky, too?

[davearm2]

If I'm confused, then it's easy to see why by looking at the bolded above. Sure seems like you're suggesting poor chemistry might improve a team's on-field performance.

 

It's just as valid a theory as suggesting that it is detrimental to their on-field performance given the evidence (or more accurately, the lack thereof). For all we know clubhouse conflict motitvates players to play harder/better in a "I'll show those [expletive]" kind of way. Why is that any less realistic than suggesting that it causes them to play worse?

It's less realistic because it is in direct odds with basic human nature. People tend to function better when they're content/relaxed/happy/focused/confident etc. than when they're stressed/worried/angry/frustrated/resentful/distracted etc.

 

This isn't some sly motivational tactic that Bradley surreptitiously invoked, and it's highly unlikely to produce the positive result you're imagining.

[davearm2]

If I'm confused, then it's easy to see why by looking at the bolded above. Sure seems like you're suggesting poor chemistry might improve a team's on-field performance.

 

It's just as valid a theory as suggesting that it is detrimental to their on-field performance given the evidence (or more accurately, the lack thereof). For all we know clubhouse conflict motitvates players to play harder/better in a "I'll show those [expletive]" kind of way. Why is that any less realistic than suggesting that it causes them to play worse?

It worked for the A's in the 1970s. They had a saying, "25 guys, 25 cabs".

Or they were talented enough to overcome it.

[davearm2]

Nobody here (and likely not even the players themselves) has a [expletive] clue what effect a negative player in the clubhouse has on team performance.

I agree as it pertains to the posters here. I disagree as it pertains to the players and team officials that see and live the situation daily, although I'd readily admit that the relationship between clubhouse atmosphere and wins and losses is nebulous at best.

 

Put yourself in Theriot's shoes.

 

Let's pretend that while you're in the clubhouse eating a light breakfast, Milton Bradley walks up, unzips, and pisses in your cheerios. You are not happy.

 

In the next week you got 7 for 24 with 3 walks, a handful of strikeouts, and a couple doubles.

 

Are you going to think Milton helped you bat .292 by making you more focused and aggressive? Or are you going to think he kept you from batting .300?

I doubt I'd think either of those things, but I wouldn't be the least surprised if my ability to focus on studying film, fielding pregame grounders, etc. would suffer while my mind was stuck on what a &^@!# *#$% Bradley is. How that would manifest at gametime is anyone's guess but it wouldn't be helpful.

[photoguy9883]

Can we just lock this thread since it's now woefully off topic?

[Cubswin11]

I wish this would be something the MLB Network would cover. Most, if not all of, MLB fans don't know what something like Sheets audition is or how it works, it would be cool if they would show it and truly be the MLB Network and show the inner workings of the offseason and not just showing a 1980's All-Star game or 1997 ALCS game. Edited January 19, 2010 by Cubswin11

[Sammy Sofa]

It's less realistic because it is in direct odds with basic human nature. People tend to function better when they're content/relaxed/happy/focused/confident etc. than when they're stressed/worried/angry/frustrated/resentful/distracted etc.

 

This isn't some sly motivational tactic that Bradley surreptitiously invoked, and it's highly unlikely to produce the positive result you're imagining.

 

I never said he did. I've made it clear I think Bradley's effect on the team's overall record outside of his own performance is negligible at best. I also don't think one guy has the ability to effect people as much as you're describing unless he was going out of his way to make people's lives miserable. It's simply not realistic to assume that a single player has the ability to motivate or drag down an entire team in terms of onfield performances through "chemistry" or the lack thereof.

[Sammy Sofa]

I doubt I'd think either of those things, but I wouldn't be the least surprised if my ability to focus on studying film, fielding pregame grounders, etc. would suffer while my mind was stuck on what a &^@!# *#$% Bradley is. How that would manifest at gametime is anyone's guess but it wouldn't be helpful.

 

Sounds like ADD as opposed to "chemistry."

[Clem Fandango]

So how bout that Ben Sheets?

[Tim M]

Mods on this forum are an absolute joke.

[Tim M]

Mods on this forum are an absolute joke.

[Clem Fandango]

Mods on this forum are an absolute joke.

 

That statement does not bode well for you

[Guest]

Mods on this forum are an absolute joke.

Thanks for the input.

 

Question...why are you still here if you consider it a joke?

[Tim M]

Mods on this forum are an absolute joke.

Thanks for the input.

 

Question...why are you still here if you consider it a joke?

 

Seems pretty ridiculous that a thread about Ben Sheets has turned into a chemistry debate. Several other threads have been derailed by off-topic fighting like this one and nothing is done about it.

[Guest]

Mods on this forum are an absolute joke.

Thanks for the input.

 

Question...why are you still here if you consider it a joke?

 

Seems pretty ridiculous that a thread about Ben Sheets has turned into a chemistry debate. Several other threads have been derailed by off-topic fighting like this one and nothing is done about it.

I'm sorry, but I've never visited a forum that didn't have threads that got off track onto something else. If the standard you set for proper moderation is an absolute decree of staying on topic, I'm afraid you wouldn't be very good at running a message board.

 

For the record, if there were any real news happening with Sheets, I'd consider splitting the thread. Since there isn't any real news to derail at the moment, I figured it wasn't worth the effort.

[Guest]

Oh, and for the long timers here, anyone want to chip in and suggest a number for how many derailed threads have been split over the seven years of the forum? I have no idea, but it's a pretty big number.

[erik316wttn]

Oh, and for the long timers here, anyone want to chip in and suggest a number for how many derailed threads have been split over the seven years of the forum? I have no idea, but it's a pretty big number.

 

50 million, give or take a dozen or so.

[A New Era]

I'd just lock the topic. And lock it any time thread gets too out of hand.

[erik316wttn]

I will say, though, that just as some constructive input, the credo of "attack the argument, not the poster" doesn't seem to be enforced anywhere near as strictly as it was when I signed up 5 years ago.

 

That being said, this is by far the best Cubs forum on the internet with the most intelligent, loyal, and dedicated posters, and I look forward to being here for many more years.