Clubhouse cancers

[bz]

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.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=64243:date=Sep 24 2009, 08:21 AM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Sep 24 2009, 08:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64223:date=Sep 23 2009, 10:46 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 23 2009, 10:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Boy, I sound like a complete dick in the above post.

Anyway, to get back to Butcher's original question, I think you can make examples for both ways. Ideally, you want everybody getting along, helping each other out, and going out for beers together after the game. But I think we've seen quite a few of those types of team right here in Chicago, and often, they seem <i>too</i> mellow to succeed at professional sports.

Often times in sports, like in art, emotional pain equals extra effort.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


don't sweat it kb, bt came off as a far bigger dick than you did.


and the bonds example was much better than the reggie example, which didn't make much sense.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


For the record, I wasn't pissed off, but I will have SOME reaction when someone calls my points "dumb", TWICE. That's pretty much a natural reaction, I would think. Not sure how I end up being a "dick" for responding to it.

And again, you rip the Jackson example, for a third time, without actually, you know, explaining why it's so dumb. I'm not buying your "everyone was a cancer on every good team Reggie played for" argument, unless of course you have something to back it up. I could be forgetting the time Gene Tenace raped a mentally disabled schoolgirl.

[veryzer]

<!--quoteo(post=64297:date=Sep 24 2009, 12:48 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Sep 24 2009, 12:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64243:date=Sep 24 2009, 08:21 AM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Sep 24 2009, 08:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64223:date=Sep 23 2009, 10:46 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 23 2009, 10:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Boy, I sound like a complete dick in the above post.

Anyway, to get back to Butcher's original question, I think you can make examples for both ways. Ideally, you want everybody getting along, helping each other out, and going out for beers together after the game. But I think we've seen quite a few of those types of team right here in Chicago, and often, they seem <i>too</i> mellow to succeed at professional sports.

Often times in sports, like in art, emotional pain equals extra effort.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


don't sweat it kb, bt came off as a far bigger dick than you did.


and the bonds example was much better than the reggie example, which didn't make much sense.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


For the record, I wasn't pissed off, but I will have SOME reaction when someone calls my points "dumb", TWICE. That's pretty much a natural reaction, I would think. Not sure how I end up being a "dick" for responding to it.

And again, you rip the Jackson example, for a third time, without actually, you know, explaining why it's so dumb. I'm not buying your "everyone was a cancer on every good team Reggie played for" argument, unless of course you have something to back it up. I could be forgetting the time Gene Tenace raped a mentally disabled schoolgirl.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


i gotta be honest bt, when i said the reggie thing was dumb (and it is) i thought i was responding to kb. but whatever.

i've been hearing about the oakland teams of the 70s forever and i always heard the whole team was crazy, not just reggie. in fact, i found it funny you mentioned joe rudi first, because i always heard he was a douchebag. i'm sure there's documentation out there, but i won't look for it. i guarantee there are other people here who've heard about the early 70s A's.

one thing i never heard? that oakland was a bunch on angels except for reggie. never heard that one. now was every team reggie played on cancerous? no, just two as far as i know. i'm certain the orioles and the angels were just fine, but who knows.

[kbwsb]

Here, Butch; this guy seems to have given great thought to your original query.
Unfortunately, this article would not be remotely understood by Mr. Hendry, because it focuses on the concept of "replacement-level players," which is a concept, like advanced quantum physics, to a toddler, that Mr. Hendry has never been able to grasp.
Nevertheless, <i>you</i> may find it to be instructive:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec--><b>Can We Measure Clubhouse Chemistry?</b>
By Sky Andrecheck
This past weekend brought the news that <!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->Milton Bradley<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->, the underperforming Chicago Cubs right fielder, was being suspended for the rest of the season. The suspension was brought about by his comments to the Daily Herald newspaper, in which he told reporters he was unhappy in Chicago, and that he was not surprised the Cubs had not won in 100 years due to the aura of negativity which permeates the team.

One can assume that the comments, inflammatory to be sure, but hardly the stuff that usually warrants a 3-week suspension, weren't really the whole story. Bradley, known around the league as one of baseball's biggest troublemakers, has been a clubhouse distraction and has had problems all season long, including a spat with manager Lou Piniella in June when he was kicked out of the clubhouse.

For the Cubs and GM Jim Hendry, the value of Bradley's on-field performance had been eclipsed by his attitude and behavior in the clubhouse. To be sure, part of what went into Hendry's calculus was the fact that Bradley has been a disappointment on the field - it's hard to imagine the Cubs benching him if he were having the kind of year he had in Texas in 2008. And it's that kind of calculation that is the focus of today's article.

The Intangibles

With the sabermetric revolution, one of the great immeasurable things is a player's contribution to the clubhouse. <!--coloro:#008080--><!--/coloro-->How much extra value does a "good guy" bring more than just your average player and, more importantly, how much of a determinant are those infamous "clubhouse cancers"?<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->

These types of questions are tough to get a handle on with statistics alone. One could attempt to measure the impact on his teammates' performance, but of course, the variability is so high, the confounding variables so numerous, and the impact so small, that there would never be enough power to see any real results. Nevertheless, players' intangible qualities and clubhouse presence are purported have an impact on the teams' behavior.

While we probably can't really measure the actual impact of a player's clubhouse demeanor on his team's W-L record (sorry if that's what you came here looking for), it might be possible to examine of how teams seem to value a player's intangible clubhouse presence based upon their behavior.

A case in point is Milton Bradley. Despite the fact that Bradley is not having a year up to his usual standards, he has still been an average right fielder this year, and has been worth 1.2 Wins Above Replacement. Factor in that Bradley probably has been getting a bit unlucky this year due to the regression effect, and his true on-field value is probably more than that. Yet, the Cubs made the calculation that the 1.2 wins he was gaining on the field were less than what he was losing off the field. Hence, the suspension for the rest of the year.

Going with another Cubs example, <!--coloro:#FF8C00--><!--/coloro-->Sammy Sosa<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->, who was never a peach even when he was breaking home run records, was similarly ousted due to non-performance related issues. After a stormy but productive 2004 season, the Cubs felt the need to practically give away Sosa the following year. His 2.4 offensive WAR was gone and the Cubs received nearly nothing in return, eating most of his salary as well. While age and swirling steroid fears probably made Sosa's 2005 projection only about half of his 2004 value, he was still likely to be a productive player. Yet the Cubs and their fans were happy with the decision to give away Sammy because they were rid of the "clubhouse cancer".

Shea Hillenbrand comes to mind as well. With a 3-year average WAR of 1.4, he was a decent player for Toronto in 2006, and was hitting over .300 at the time, when he was outright released by the Blue Jays for disrespecting the team and the management. The Jays lost Hillenbrand's 1.4 wins on the field, but presumably, in the Jays' minds, gained back at least 1.4 wins by sending Hillenbrand's attitude packing.

Of course, there is a limit to the quality of skill that a team will jettison. Plenty of reported "clubhouse cancers" have had long, productive careers. Albert Belle comes to mind. So does Barry Bonds. Had these players been lesser talents, they would have likely been gone long ago, but teams don't release MVP-caliber players. In fact, I can't think of even a 3 or 4 WAR all-star caliber player ever having been given away or released largely due to clubhouse attitude. Instead, teams learn to deal with these players, rather than oust them. At most, they'll trade them, usually taking less value than his on-field value would normally merit.

It would appear that at max, a team considers even the jerkiest behavior worth about -1.5 wins over the course of a season. From the examples above, and some intuition, it seems that league average players can be released due to serious "cancerous" behavior, but that above that level, teams would rather deal with the player's attitude than give up his talent.

An interesting question is the distribution of a player's clubhouse impact. This is purely theoretical, but I would imagine that the impact of player's attitude is skewed heavily to the left, so that there are many players with small, but positive impacts, but that it's pretty much impossible for someone to have a very large positive impact. Meanwhile, I would imagine that the distribution skews well into the negative, where a few players can have a large negative impacts on a team. As most people who have been in group situations can tell you, the maximum positive impact that any one person can have on morale and attitude is relatively small compared to the disruption and difficultly caused by a few bad apples. At least, that's my hypothesis. As a result, while 1.5 wins may be the maximum negative win contribution a player can have on a team, the maximum positive clubhouse impact is probably much smaller.


No Replacement Level Jerks

The distribution of course, is just a guess, but let's see if it makes sense in another context by looking at bench players. If the average bench warmer has a WAR of 0.5, it would make sense that there would be no benchwarmers who's attitude would be worth -0.5 WAR. If we use the distribution above, it means that that bench caliber players who are among the 90th percentile of jerkiness would not make the major leagues due to their attitude. <!--coloro:#008080--><!--/coloro-->Put another way, of the 10% jerkiest players in baseball, none are scrubs.<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->

Does this calculation reflect reality? I've never been inside a major league clubhouse, so it's tough to know. However, relief pitcher Todd Jones seems to agree. According to Jones' article for the Sporting News, <i>there are very few jerks who are bench guys and long relievers and most scrubs are usually good guys. Bad players with bad attitudes are non-existent, but bad players with good attitudes might make the club.</i>

All About Chemistry

So, if we assume that each player has a clubhouse contribution, with the mean centered at zero and a small standard deviation of about 0.2 wins, how much can clubhouse chemistry really affect the team's overall performance? Multiplying the SD by the square root of 25, we see that clubhouse chemistry would have a standard deviation of 1 win, meaning that <b>the team with the worst chemistry in baseball will lose about 2 extra games because of it, while teams with the best chemistry gain about 2 extra wins. </b>At least, that's the best estimate we have from looking at teams' behavior with regard to their personnel decisions.

The true value of chemistry is probably so difficult to determine, that it cannot be ascertained directly. If teams are under or over valuing clubhouse chemistry, then theoretically a team could take advantage by assembling an all-jerk team or an all good-guy team to take advantage of the inefficiency. However, by looking at teams' behavior, we have attempted to estimate at least what clubhouse attitude is currently valued at among major league teams. Is it valued correctly? For that, perhaps an even more subjective view is needed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Ace]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->So, if we assume that each player has a clubhouse contribution, with the mean centered at zero and a small standard deviation of about 0.2 wins, how much can clubhouse chemistry really affect the team's overall performance? Multiplying the SD by the square root of 25, we see that clubhouse chemistry would have a standard deviation of 1 win, meaning that the team with the worst chemistry in baseball will lose about 2 extra games because of it, while teams with the best chemistry gain about 2 extra wins.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And if you multiply it by 47 you get 94 extra losses.

Where are these numbers coming from?

[kbwsb]

Why would you multiply it by 47?

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=64354:date=Sep 25 2009, 08:48 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 25 2009, 08:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Why would you multiply it by 47?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
KB, that is precisely his point. The calculation looks like random numbers being thrown together.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=64355:date=Sep 25 2009, 07:49 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Sep 25 2009, 07:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64354:date=Sep 25 2009, 08:48 AM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 25 2009, 08:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Why would you multiply it by 47?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
KB, that is precisely his point. The calculation looks like random numbers being thrown together.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

25...just a random clubhouse number...

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=64355:date=Sep 25 2009, 07:49 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Sep 25 2009, 07:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64354:date=Sep 25 2009, 08:48 AM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 25 2009, 08:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Why would you multiply it by 47?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
KB, that is precisely his point. The calculation looks like random numbers being thrown together.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which, to me, is precisely the point of the article; in an era where 90% of MLB teams desperately try to quantify performance and outcomes by <i>known</i> quantities, we're trying to base our opinions on things like 'I think the team would win more games if they were more pleasant to strangers."

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=64359:date=Sep 25 2009, 08:16 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 25 2009, 08:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64355:date=Sep 25 2009, 07:49 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Sep 25 2009, 07:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64354:date=Sep 25 2009, 08:48 AM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Sep 25 2009, 08:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Why would you multiply it by 47?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
KB, that is precisely his point. The calculation looks like random numbers being thrown together.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which, to me, is precisely the point of the article; in an era where 90% of MLB teams desperately try to quantify performance and outcomes by <i>known</i> quantities, we're trying to base our opinions on things like 'I think the team would win more games if they were more pleasant to strangers."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's more like 'I think the team would win more games if they were more pleasant to each other."

[Butcher]

I liked the general gist of the article, but as has already been said, creating that equation at the end of the article was pointless. He should have just said something like, "It's impossible to measure, but most teams won't rid themselves of a really talented asshole -- they'd rather deal with his assholishness because they feel his contributions far outweigh his distractions" and left it at that.

[leonardsipes]

The mistake people are making is that clubhouse caner = asshole, and that chemestry = everybody getting along. A work place cancer, is someone who's actions make everybody elses job harder. Chemestry is when the production of the group is greater than the sum of the production of the indivduals.

Bradley is a great example. His stats say he is 1.4 WAR, but put any one of Hoffpauir, Johnson, Fox or Fuld in the lineup, and the team plays better.

[kbwsb]

Does anyone have a subscription to BASEBALL PROSPECTUS?
Because I'd really like to read the rest of this article.
The first part is 100% spot-on:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Bradleygate?
by Joe Sheehan

In something of a surprise, the Cubs have suspended Milton Bradley for the rest of the season for conduct detrimental to the team. There are about two weeks left in the season, so in the midst of the big pile-on, I'd like to ask one question: <b>Who the hell has ever been suspended for two weeks for what they said to the media? This is a severe and unwarranted overreaction, a cynical public-relations ploy designed to curry favor with fans and the media and distract both groups from a Cubs season that is ending with a whimper</b>.

The interview, published in Saturday's Arlington Daily Herald, certainly wasn't a high-water mark for Bradley. When asked if he'd enjoyed his time in Chicago, he said he hadn't, he pointed out that it's a media-saturated environment and he connected what he perceived as a negative atmosphere to the Cubs' inability to win a World Series for a century. He clearly hasn't been comfortable in Chicago, and coupled with the perception that he's played poorly and a few incidents in which his notorious temper has gotten the better of him, he's become a lightning rod for blame.

His comments in the Herald weren't particularly new or enlightening, and they didn't attack any individual. They weren't profane or notably inflammatory. For this, he gets sent home for two weeks. By doing so, Hendry is blatantly pandering to the disgruntled fan base and the local media, as <!--coloro:#4B0082--><!--/coloro-->Carrie Muskat<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc--> reported as far as Hendry's comments on the subject for MLB.com:

"I'm not going to let our great fans become an excuse, I'm not going to tolerate not answering questions from the media respectfully."

Really, now. This is why you've suspended one of your best players for two weeks, because it's mission-critical that your players respect the fans and treat the media well? That's nonsense, and the rush to back up Hendry and tear down Bradley is yet another example of the co-dependent relationship between baseball teams and the free media they rely upon. Players don't take two-week suspensions for being rude, and they don't take two week suspensions for the content of their quotes. Come to think of it, players don't take two-week suspensions, period; the last non-drug-related suspension of this length was Albert Belle's, and he threw a baseball at a fan who was heckling him from the stands.

Hendry can do this because he's the general manager of a team that woke up on Sunday 11 games out of first place and seven games out of the wild-card race, effectively eliminated from contention. Let's be very clear that this suspension would not be happening if the Cubs had continued their late charge to the fringe of the race, or if they had any kind of chance of making the postseason. Let's also be very clear that this suspension would not be happening had Bradley's stats been comparable to last year's. <b>Bradley isn't being suspended because of what he said</b>; he's being suspended because he did so with a .240 batting average and the Cubs are buried in the standings.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[veryzer]

*yawn*

bradley desereved to be suspended and i commend hendry for having the balls to do it.

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=64489:date=Sep 26 2009, 06:37 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Sep 26 2009, 06:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->bradley desereved to be suspended .<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why?
As the article stated, the last player to get a suspension of this magnitude was well over a decade ago, when Albert Belle whipped a fastball at a fan's head.
How does Milton blowing off a little steam in an interview <i>remotely</i> compare?