Reason 47 Why I'm Glad We're Not The Red Sox

[ofahn]

If you missed it Yahoo's Jeff Passan wrote a no holds barred article about the chaos and back biting in the Boston clubhouse. I'm just amazed that a group of so called professionals could be so self centered. Their payroll is more than twice what the Orioles is and they're blaming their new manager, Bobby Valentine, for their problems. Maybe now they'll appreciate their old manager, Terry Francona, who they ran out of town by acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

The Sux ownership will have some hard decisions to make this winter. They brought in Valentine. whose reputation is as a hard ass, because they felt that Francona had been too easy on the players. Now their players are complaining because the new sheriff won't let them get away with what the old sheriff did. I can see ownership eating the rest of Valentine's contract but I can also see the Sux seriously cleaning house after the season.

What a mess.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/bobby-vale ... alez-.html

[birdwatcher55]

I live and work in Boston. Word on the street is Valentine is out Oct. 4 and the Red Sox will make a strong push for Farrell in Toronto, even though he is under contract through 2013

[osforlife]

Pitching and off-field problems are another thing, but (WHEN HEALTHY), they do have a very potent offense including Ellsbury, Pedroia, A-Gon, Ortiz, Middlebrooks, Crawford.

[ofahn]

Pitching and off-field problems are another thing, but (WHEN HEALTHY), they do have a very potent offense including Ellsbury, Pedroia, A-Gon, Ortiz, Middlebrooks, Crawford.

No doubt BUT none of that matters if they don't work together as a team and focus their energies on the field. The "Swinging As" of the 70s fought amongst themselves all the time; but on the field they were a team, and played that way.

If I were Red Sox ownership I would make some hard choices and move the biggest problems out of that clubhouse this winter.

[A_K]

Still never really understood how a baseball team is capable of "playing as a team." Virtually the entire game is individual.

[ofahn]

Still never really understood how a baseball team is capable of "playing as a team." Virtually the entire game is individual.

Simply subordinating your own interests for that of the collective. Some groups of individuals seem to accomplish more as a team than the sum of their talent. I'll start with the 69 Mets. The 87 Twins. The 88 Dodgers. The 89 Orioles. The 92 Braves. The 2004 Red Sox. I'm sure I've missed a few teams but I hope I've made my point.

[A_K]

Simply subordinating your own interests for that of the collective.

But how? As I said, virtually all of the acts required to conduct a baseball game are individual in nature. You can't subordinate your own interests while batting for the good of the collective; the individual and collective interests are one in the same. Likewise, there's no defensive situation that would motivate an individual to do something that might not be beneficial to the team. Again, individual mindedness and team mindedness are one in the same.

Some groups of individuals seem to accomplish more as a team than the sum of their talent. I'll start with the 69 Mets. The 87 Twins. The 88 Dodgers. The 89 Orioles. The 92 Braves. The 2004 Red Sox. I'm sure I've missed a few teams but I hope I've made my point.

Six teams that overachieved relative to their on-paper talent level doesn't establish that it's possible to overcome talent deficiencies if you accept a vaguely defined notion of collectivism; it establishes that there are a range of possible outcomes within any given season and over enough time a certain percent of outlying teams will succeed to a degree outpacing what's expected. That's not unusual by any means. In fact, it's entirely normal.

[ofahn]

ofahn wrote:
Simply subordinating your own interests for that of the collective.



But how? As I said, virtually all of the acts required to conduct a baseball game are individual in nature. You can't subordinate your own interests while batting for the good of the collective; the individual and collective interests are one in the same. Likewise, there's no defensive situation that would motivate an individual to do something that might not be beneficial to the team. Again, individual mindedness and team mindedness are one in the same.

It can be as simple as hitting a ball to the right side of infield to move a runner over. It's an o - fer AB but it can mean the difference in a game. Or running into the wall to make a catch. Or blocking the plate. All of these things are making a personal sacrifice for the team. Players recognize when their teammates do this and it can become contagious.

[ofahn]

ofahn wrote: Some groups of individuals seem to accomplish more as a team than the sum of their talent. I'll start with the 69 Mets. The 87 Twins. The 88 Dodgers. The 89 Orioles. The 92 Braves. The 2004 Red Sox. I'm sure I've missed a few teams but I hope I've made my point.



Six teams that overachieved relative to their on-paper talent level doesn't establish that it's possible to overcome talent deficiencies if you accept a vaguely defined notion of collectivism; it establishes that there are a range of possible outcomes within any given season and over enough time a certain percent of outlying teams will succeed to a degree outpacing what's expected. That's not unusual by any means. In fact, it's entirely normal.

That would be one way of looking at it. I see it differently.

[A_K]

It can be as simple as hitting a ball to the right side of infield to move a runner over. It's an o - fer AB but it can mean the difference in a game. Or running into the wall to make a catch. Or blocking the plate. All of these things are making a personal sacrifice for the team. Players recognize when their teammates do this and it can become contagious.

Neither running into the wall to make a catch or blocking the plate are individual sacrifices. Those are perfect examples of the interests of the individual and the collective being one and the same. Players who make highlight catches slamming into the wall or by blocking home plate develop a reputation as good defenders. Players with reputations as good defenders get paid more money than otherwise comparable players with reputations as bad defenders. If you were entirely looking out for yourself and didn't care about winning or losing, you'd still be best served to make those kinds of plays.

Hitting the ball to the right side of the infield to advance a runner is potentially an individual sacrifice. But the team and the individual would both be better served by the individual attempting to get a hit than they would by merely attempting to hit the ball to the ride side of the field. The difference in value between an out and advancing a runner one base is skewed heavily toward the defensive team. So, once again, an individual baseball player would be pursuing the interests of the collective most effectively by looking out for himself.

[ofahn]

Neither running into the wall to make a catch or blocking the plate are individual sacrifices. Those are perfect examples of the interests of the individual and the collective being one and the same. Players who make highlight catches slamming into the wall or by blocking home plate develop a reputation as good defenders. Players with reputations as good defenders get paid more money than otherwise comparable players with reputations as bad defenders. If you were entirely looking out for yourself and didn't care about winning or losing, you'd still be best served to make those kinds of plays.

Hitting the ball to the right side of the infield to advance a runner is potentially an individual sacrifice. But the team and the individual would both be better served by the individual attempting to get a hit than they would by merely attempting to hit the ball to the ride side of the field. The difference in value between an out and advancing a runner one base is skewed heavily toward the defensive team. So, once again, an individual baseball player would be pursuing the interests of the collective most effectively by looking out for himself.

Again, that would be one way of looking at it. I see it differently.