Chris Gough, KC Metro Sports, was on 810(or 610) radio on my drive home this afternoon and was...

that can only mean one thing:

A Grit Civil War—it could get ugly out there

Gload represents old school Grit while Willie is the new fangled Grit that all the kids are talking about these days on their tweets. The question is can Trey Hillman keep these two worlds of grit together? Obviously trading Gload would indicate that Willie has won but this is much bigger than our team—the future of baseball hinges on this epic struggle.

by nwroyal on Apr 3, 2009 8:14 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

what?

by Freneau on Apr 3, 2009 8:16 PM EDT reply actions

Wow the Gload thing is surprising

Bloomy was a friend of Guillens in Seattle I believe so he could have a good effect on him

I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.

by kcscoliny on Apr 3, 2009 8:25 PM EDT reply actions

This all makes perfect sense

Attitude is the #1 deciding factor in how well a team will perform on a daily basis. If people change their attitudes, they can be said to be forming new attitudes. Thus much of the theorizing and research considered under attitude change can be regarded as relevant to the issue of attitude formation. Attitude change theorists tend to share the view that attitudes are modified by the provision or acquisition of new information. The general assumption in such an approach is that the new information will modify an individual’s beliefs about the attributes of the attitude object. To the extent that these attributes are positively or negatively evaluated by the individual, his or her attitude should change.

FKA "MileHighKCfan"

by JSouth on Apr 3, 2009 8:28 PM EDT reply actions

Oh

and I found all this bullshit here

FKA "MileHighKCfan"

by JSouth on Apr 3, 2009 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, I'm I'm clear on that shit now.

by Steve Hovley on Apr 3, 2009 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Bloomquist is keeping Guillen in check

When I read that I laughed so hard that milk that I drank yesterday shot out of my nose.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 3, 2009 8:34 PM EDT reply actions

Skinny white guys scare the hell out of Jose Guillen

realistically speaking

by slayor on Apr 3, 2009 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes sir, Mr. Bloomquist. Whatever you say, Mr. Bloomquist. I’ll get right on that, Mr. Bloomquist.

You know, it would be hilarious if one of the big reasons Moore signed Bloomy was so he could keep Guillen in line. I think there’s even a 5% chance that this is true.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 3, 2009 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions

DHCF+. New sabermetric column---Dick Head Control Factor adjusted to extreme ballplayer personality disorders.

by Steve Hovley on Apr 3, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Bloomquist

is a tribble. He makes warm cooing sounds.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Apr 4, 2009 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions

THAT is why he got 2 years!

…to cover Guillen’s 2 remaining years. It all makes sense now…

WTF, self?

by minda33 on Apr 4, 2009 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Maybe Buddy Bianbianbiancalancalanaaaaa's attitude group is also being employed to improve the zeitgeist in the clubhouse.

by Steve Hovley on Apr 3, 2009 9:06 PM EDT reply actions

This is what Jose thinks about people trying to "keep him in check"

Create your own FACEinHOLE

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 3, 2009 10:12 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs

Heeeeeeeeeeere's Hoagie!

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 3, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs

I think that photo is a composite fake!

On the left, Jose Guillen with a Jack Nicholsen, 1970s hairdo, on the right, a typical reaction from a fan witnessing Jose Guillen trying to run down a “routine” fly ball at the K in 2008.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 3, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Other than Bloomquist throwing on a wig...

it’s all real.

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 3, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions

So you guys are going to make fun of the new culture inside the Royals clubhouse instead of talk about stuff that really matters?

Like, the guys that GMDM has brought in that everyone has been upset about (Jacobs, Bloomquist, CoCo) who seem to be changing everything and becoming leaders in the clubhouse…

I think if this is the case, it is awesome and GMDM knows way more about teambuilding than you guys (and me) originally thought.

Everyone's recruits look better than ours.

by 306008 on Apr 4, 2009 12:20 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Do you really believe that new players are "changing everything and becoming leaders" in any meaningful way?

This is the kind of thing that gets over-reported and exaggerated all the time. And people pretend like it something that really matters when it is mostly just cosmetic BS. Is it going to make players hit better or field better? Is it going to make pitchers pitch better?

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 4, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't know that any of us...

are really qualified to have a meaningful discussion about what’s really going on in the Royals’ clubhouse. Unless you have some inside knowledge you’d like to share? I’d be happy to hear it. What else is (essentially) anonymous internet blogging/commenting for?

Look, if this “report” is accurate, then great. (I tend to agree with NY that this is exactly the type of boilerplate story that reporters pull out of their asses every spring if a team has acquired a veteran or three.) If Bloomquist somehow acts as a calming influence on Jose, then great. If that was a big part of Dayton’s calculus in bringing him aboard, then OK. But I’d still rather have a corner OF that was worth his contract…and that did NOT need a personal player-counselor to keep his emotions in check. And in the end, I think Jose will show his true colors before long (as he has with EVERY OTHER team he’s played for), even if Willie is his muse/psychological-soulmate. That was essentially the point of the “comment” I made. Mainly, I just wanted to try to entertain everyone and make some people laugh with Royals-related humor.

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 4, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions

he was really popular with the other Mariners, according to some sources

so all the Royals need to do is acquire the rest of the 2007 Mariners ( and let’s face it, they don’t have far to go), and Hoagy’s contract will totally pay off!

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 4, 2009 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions

I think Bloomquist really could have a calming influence on Guillen

If he were armed with a tranquilizer gun.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 4, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions

I was thinking shovel

realistically speaking

by slayor on Apr 4, 2009 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Mostly agree

However, we can’t pretend this stuff has zero impact either. It’s just as wrong to be a mouth-breathing former ballplayer going on and on ad nauseum about grit and playing the game the right way and chemistry and all that shit while ignoring actual performance-based metrics as it is to assume that none of that stuff matters at all.

Yeah, teams with “bad chemistry” win all the time, but that’s because the individual players have the psychological makeup to get past their problems with teammates or management. If you have bad chemistry AND players who aren’t the sort to take out their frustrations on the opposition, you have a team… well, you have the 1992 Mets, for one glaring example.

Maybe Moore DOES think Guillen will perform better with Vilhelm Blümqvist around to be Fran Healy to his Reggie Jackson. And even Reggie has said that Healy kept him from just giving up back in ‘77. So you can’t just handwave this stuff away as meaningless.

(Of course, in reference to Sweep the Leg’s response above, Jose Guillen is no Reggie Jackson. I think if you’ve got a Barry Bonds on the roster, you absolutely waste a roster spot if it means keeping a barely-productive player around who can keep Barry from having a meltdown. Or even better, you hire a coach who can handle his ass. If you’ve got a Jose Guillen, then you just get rid of your Jose Guillen.)

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on Apr 4, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions

You just summed up the biggest

portion of my ‘problem’ w/ Sabermetrics guys (at least the way they portray them selves on the internets)…

However, we can’t pretend this stuff has zero impact either. It’s just as wrong to be a mouth-breathing former ballplayer going on and on ad nauseum about grit and playing the game the right way and chemistry and all that shit while ignoring actual performance-based metrics as it is to assume that none of that stuff matters at all.

It seems to me, that a large portion of the people that post here do exactly the opposite, and feel totally justified in doing so. It’s almost as though since there is no known formula to quantify ‘grit’, it doesn’t exist. Leadership can’t be quantified in an equation, so it doesn’t matter. But not only are those things ignored, they are ridiculed ad nauseum…

I understand, from a saber point of view why the signing of Bloomquist (for example) looks completely asinine. I really do. I also see, from my traditionalist point of view the enormous benefit of having ‘clubhouse guys’ – so long as they do not come at the extreme sacrifice of production, and save the possibility that Bloomy contributed to missing out on O-Dog (though I think unless we could get incentives that added up to $10M+ we were bound to lose that fight to LAD), he’s not exactly blocking much production on our organization at this point…

BOOM! ROASTED!

by GoBabies!! on Apr 4, 2009 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions

This stuff can be important sometimes, to some degree

But it involves an endless series of complete unknowns? Who is actually showing leadership? Who is actually a great clubhouse guy? (Does a KC Star or Royals.com article reliably answer these questions?) When, how and to what degree do these things actually help the team? And is there any downside (some player(s) who don’t like Player X “taking charge” of the clubhouse)? This is a short list of the massive unknowns involved. But that doesn’t stop many traditionalists from talking about how massively valuable some player’s leadership or clubhouse presence is. I don’t buy it unless you can give me better evidence than that. Sure we can just regurgitate traditional aphorisms about grit and leadership, but does that get us anywhere at all?

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 5, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions

Summing up the issue

1) Clubhouse stuff definitely impacts the team. You cannot discount things like leadership; young players learn stuff from patient, wily veterans all the time. A team which is a mix of developing young players and veterans who teach will, all else being equal, end up better than a team which is a mix of developing young players and self-centered assholes who provide no guidance.

2) Since we’re not in the clubhouse, and there’s no way to measure these impacts, we simply have no way of knowing whether what’s reported is meaningful or whether it’s crap. Reggie Jackson certainly believes that having Fran Healy around kept him from giving up when he went to New York; only Reggie Jackson knows whether that’s true or not, and even that’s debatable. So while we can’t say having Vilhelm around will help Hogui, we also can’t say it won’t.

My only issue with you on this topic is not that we just have no way of knowing so these sort of things are nebulous at best; I agree with that. My issue is that you often come across as thinking it flat-out does not matter at all, and the whole concept of player psychology is essentially balderdash.

I mean, this stuff does matter, just like any other normal people workplace situations do. And when I say “just like,” I actually mean that. They put some obnoxious jackass on our project team who maybe interferes with our workplace habits and communication? Well, that guy over there might get so irritated that his performance declines, while you might be irritated but continue to do your job unaffected, and I might be so pissed off that my performance improves out of spite. It happens to “real people,” so there’s no excuse for thinking it doesn’t happen to ballplayers — and there’s also no reason to expect them to behave any more professionally than we do.

In fact, one could argue that our expectations of their professionalism should be lessened, considering the somewhat higher sense of self-entitlement apparently possessed by many exceptional athletes.

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on Apr 5, 2009 7:10 AM EDT up reply actions

My issue is that you often come across as thinking it flat-out does not matter at all, and the whole concept of player psychology is essentially balderdash.

That’s fair. I’m dismissive of the issue and mentions of it because it is such an unknown. So when someone says that Player X is helping the team with his leadership or clubhouse presence, it just sounds like so much BS. That’s not because this isn’t possible. It’s because it is entirely speculative. To me, it’s a lot like prayer. Someone could say that a certain player’s prayers are helping the team. Now this might be true. But how are we to know? Is it true? To what degree? And when this is all just guesswork, it seems like discussing these things (who is helping the team through leadership, who is helping the team by being a great clubhouse guy, etc.) is essentially no different from evaluating a player’s grit, fire, moxie or chutzpah.

The immoderate moderator

by Scott McKinney on Apr 5, 2009 7:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Except

that some of these references aren’t hocus-pocus.

An example: there have been numerous stories about the working relationship between Zack and Gil, with extensive quotes from both, on how they’ve helped each other get past roadblocks. Well, now, those certainly aren’t BS, right?

The other thing is… I don’t know how much of your work life you’ve spent as part of a team (given your occupation, it’s entirely possible the answer is “zero”), but there is such a thing as “a great clubhouse guy,” and all you need to identify them is hearsay. Cut the wrong guy in a layoff, and watch his team’s production crater.

Interestingly, when this happens, it’s usually because the laid-off employee’s production itself seems sub-par by whatever metrics his company uses, but his actual value to his team WAS in the way he helped his colleagues out by teaching them stuff or pitching in on projects or whatever. That makes it a very interesting parallel. Of course, in a baseball organization, one might argue that such a person should become a coach, but that’s another argument altogether. ;)

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on Apr 5, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions

I think

that good clubhouse guys can help and bad clubhouse guys can, but not necessarily, hurt. It probably depends on every player in the clubhouse and his particular ability to deal with different personalities and situations. Just in today’s paper Crisp is quoted as saying the whole Manny being Manny thing never really affected him. Now, who knows if that’s true. But, it is a point of reference.

However, you can look at Bonds and I think certainly find some bad effects. In the NFL, Johnson on the Chiefs and TO anywhere he freaking goes are examples of bad apples mattering.

The General Theory of Royaltivity

by kabrink on Apr 5, 2009 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions

+1, mainly

for reminding us that not all veterans are “gritty.” Some are “wily.” This needs further discussion.

Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.

by Matt Klaassen on Apr 5, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Actually, I posted this because I thought the part about Gload was the most interesting part, not Bloomy.

That Gload was perceived as a ‘bad seed’ in the clubhouse and him being Hillman’s favorite says something about the rift (too strong a word) between management and the players. I pictured Gload being the teacher’s pet and the rest of the players resenting and even mocking the management team (add folding chairs here.) I know all of this is conjecture and unscientific but that doesn’t mean that we can’t speculate about players perceptions and the team culture. Not as important as talent and performance but a contributing factor to the entire picture and final results.

by Steve Hovley on Apr 4, 2009 8:57 PM EDT reply actions

I actually heard the same interview

And when he was saying that “Everyone on the clubhouse is on the dame page except for one guy (and then there was this kind of pause and I was SURE he was going to say JoaGui only to hear)…Ross Gload.”

I was pretty stunned too.

BOOM! ROASTED!

by GoBabies!! on Apr 4, 2009 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions