09-24-2009, 12:42 PM
To suggest that working with a so-called "cancer" won't affect performance in any work situation is silly. It isn't primary, but it's part of the total outcome.
If a player <i>is</i> a cancer, but he performs, his cancerous behavior will be overlooked. People will sneer, talk about him behind his back, perhaps even avoid said person all together. But, generally, all will get along.
If a player is a cancer and plays like shit, it will completely flip. That person's me-first attitude won't fly because they haven't earned the right to behave that way. Sammy, Reggie, Barry, etc. were allowed to be dicks because people would tolerate them if they helped them win. If they didn't help them win, all the other bullshit that they've put up with has been so for no reason.
You can't act like a baseball team is a system that is completely modeled towards a specific goal, but won't be affected by all possibilities at all possible times, all in which has the potential to deviate said team from said goal.
Here are two concepts that help explain my position:
The all too famous Schrödinger's cat scenario and applied chaos theory in organizational development.
I don't disagree that good team chemistry is the result of winning. Or that losing isn't/is the result of bad team chemistry. Or that bad team chemistry caused losing or good team chemistry caused winning. Or that good team chemistry existed despite losing or that bad team chemistry existed despite winning. Or chemistry was a non-factor in the inevitable outcome. Or chemistry was a minor factor in inevitable outcome. But I do not believe that "bad" team chemistry is the perceived result of, simply, losing.
If a player <i>is</i> a cancer, but he performs, his cancerous behavior will be overlooked. People will sneer, talk about him behind his back, perhaps even avoid said person all together. But, generally, all will get along.
If a player is a cancer and plays like shit, it will completely flip. That person's me-first attitude won't fly because they haven't earned the right to behave that way. Sammy, Reggie, Barry, etc. were allowed to be dicks because people would tolerate them if they helped them win. If they didn't help them win, all the other bullshit that they've put up with has been so for no reason.
You can't act like a baseball team is a system that is completely modeled towards a specific goal, but won't be affected by all possibilities at all possible times, all in which has the potential to deviate said team from said goal.
Here are two concepts that help explain my position:
The all too famous Schrödinger's cat scenario and applied chaos theory in organizational development.
I don't disagree that good team chemistry is the result of winning. Or that losing isn't/is the result of bad team chemistry. Or that bad team chemistry caused losing or good team chemistry caused winning. Or that good team chemistry existed despite losing or that bad team chemistry existed despite winning. Or chemistry was a non-factor in the inevitable outcome. Or chemistry was a minor factor in inevitable outcome. But I do not believe that "bad" team chemistry is the perceived result of, simply, losing.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy