Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: Yahoo: Mike Pelfrey Defended

  1. #21
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    492
    Like
    2
    Liked 79 Times in 49 Posts
    Baseball teams have extremely high rates of player turnover, so comparing corporate chemistry to the 25-man roster is prima facie invalid. Certainly personal characteristics have to be considered on some level, but because so few people are capable of playing Major League Baseball, organizations do not have a ton of discretion in this area.

    The field staff (and front office) are a different story, since they are much more easily replaceable and turn over at a lesser rate.

  2. #22
    Senior Member All-Star Thrylos's Avatar
    Posts
    4,135
    Twitter
    @thrylos98
    Like
    34
    Liked 432 Times in 262 Posts
    Blog Entries
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by drivlikejehu View Post
    Baseball teams have extremely high rates of player turnover, so comparing corporate chemistry to the 25-man roster is prima facie invalid. Certainly personal characteristics have to be considered on some level, but because so few people are capable of playing Major League Baseball, organizations do not have a ton of discretion in this area.

    The field staff (and front office) are a different story, since they are much more easily replaceable and turn over at a lesser rate.
    It might be prima facie invalid, but if you did deeper, clubhouse and team culture, as corporate culture, is determined by the leaders (who as you said turn over at a lesser rate; and at a painfully slow rate in the Twins case) and not the workers/players.

    The front office can determine the type of culture they want to have and go get those kind of players. Apparently the MacPhail Front office has been more successful that the Ryan (and its derivatives) front office in creating a winning culture...
    -----
    Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
    http://tenthinningstretch.blogspot.com/
    twitter: @thrylos98

  3. #23
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    365
    Like
    60
    Liked 65 Times in 44 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrylos View Post
    I would not compare apples:


    to oranges



    As far as winning goes.


    And the different results of these 2 groupings make this false:



    To go from being a competitive team for 4 seasons with one and outs in the post-season to wining 2 World Series in 4 seasons, apparently you need more than talent.

    in 1987 and 1991, the Twins did not have the AL Cy Young and AL MVP play in the same team. In 2006 they did. Arguably, the 2006 team was more talented than either of the World Series teams. Why did they not win? Not because of talent it seems...

    Heart, Chemistry and Desire to win are huge as well...

    Or find me another explanation about the postseason Gardenhire loser teams, which does not involve "luck", "dice" or "the Yankees".

    I am all ears.
    If Heart, Chemistry and Desire were the main focus of GM's and winning teams we wouldn't be talking about ERA, FIP, Strikeouts, Batting average etc. because they would all be trumped by chemistry. If your premise is correct then all of baseball has it wrong. We shouldn't look for guy who throws 100 miles an hour but gritty guys with heart that throw 80. I am not aware of any organization that prizes such players.

    I don't think anyone would argue that chemistry makes a difference, and no one has that I can see, but the Talent has to be there to win. You can have the greatest chemistry in your locker room and never make it to the playoffs. You can have the talent of the Yankee's and not make it to the playoffs as injuries, down years, and poor decisions come into play as well. In the end the baseball world searches for talent first and chemistry later.

  4. #24
    Senior Member All-Star JB_Iowa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,151
    Like
    1,230
    Liked 1,182 Times in 693 Posts
    I don't necessarily think that heart, chemistry and desire = clubhouse chemistry.

    I think of clubhouse chemistry more as "getting along with one another" and in that context, while it may help smooth the waters somewhat during a long season, I'm not sure it leads to championships.

    Give me someone who has talent AND a burning desire to win (even if he may not be the best-loved guy in the clubhouse).

    (This is actually where I think the original writer of the post Bonnes cited went wrong. Pelfrey may be a good clubhouse guy but he also apparently WANTS the d*mn ball every 5th day. To me that is more important than whether his card-playing buddies like him).

  5. #25
    Senior Member All-Star Thrylos's Avatar
    Posts
    4,135
    Twitter
    @thrylos98
    Like
    34
    Liked 432 Times in 262 Posts
    Blog Entries
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Dman View Post
    If Heart, Chemistry and Desire were the main focus of GM's and winning teams we wouldn't be talking about ERA, FIP, Strikeouts, Batting average etc. because they would all be trumped by chemistry. If your premise is correct then all of baseball has it wrong. We shouldn't look for guy who throws 100 miles an hour but gritty guys with heart that throw 80. I am not aware of any organization that prizes such players.

    I don't think anyone would argue that chemistry makes a difference, and no one has that I can see, but the Talent has to be there to win. You can have the greatest chemistry in your locker room and never make it to the playoffs. You can have the talent of the Yankee's and not make it to the playoffs as injuries, down years, and poor decisions come into play as well. In the end the baseball world searches for talent first and chemistry later.

    Nah.

    That is not the point. The point was what made the Santana Mauer and Morneau and Gardernhire and Ryan teams different than the Puckett, Hrbek, Viola, Knoblauch, TK and MacPhail teams.

    They both had talent, so the "ERA, FIP, Strikeouts" etc were all taken care.

    What made one group of TALENTED Twins' teams win 2 World Series in 4 years vs the other group of (potentially more) talented Twins' teams be one and out post-season losers.

    This is the point of discussion.
    -----
    Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
    http://tenthinningstretch.blogspot.com/
    twitter: @thrylos98

  6. #26
    Senior Member All-Star Thrylos's Avatar
    Posts
    4,135
    Twitter
    @thrylos98
    Like
    34
    Liked 432 Times in 262 Posts
    Blog Entries
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by JB_Iowa View Post
    I don't necessarily think that heart, chemistry and desire = clubhouse chemistry.

    I think of clubhouse chemistry more as "getting along with one another" and in that context, while it may help smooth the waters somewhat during a long season, I'm not sure it leads to championships.

    Give me someone who has talent AND a burning desire to win (even if he may not be the best-loved guy in the clubhouse).

    (This is actually where I think the original writer of the post Bonnes cited went wrong. Pelfrey may be a good clubhouse guy but he also apparently WANTS the d*mn ball every 5th day. To me that is more important than whether his card-playing buddies like him).
    Totally agreed. I don't care about players getting along and being complacent and being ok with being losers (try to find and replay Cuddyer's postgame interview after the Twins lost game 163 to Thome and the White Sux)

    That was my point. Desire to win and not accepting losing is the key. And the Twins for the last 20 years do not care. Heck, they lost 99+96+96 and blamed it all on Jerry and Stelly and gave a whole bunch of promotions to the front office.
    -----
    Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
    http://tenthinningstretch.blogspot.com/
    twitter: @thrylos98

  7. #27
    I can see the guy's point about chemistry myself. The more you work with someone, the more it gels. I've been with my team over two years now managing a bank branch and we gel a lot easier than we did when we all came together. It's not great by any means, but it's very functional and we've been very successful.

    As for Pelfrey, I think it's something more than chemistry. I think it's a sense of obligation from both parties:

    1. I think the Twins feel obligated to give Pelfrey another shot. I almost wonder if Pelfrey was a rebound signing last year after Baker went to the Cubs. I wonder if the Twins FO felt hurt over Baker going and went to get another TJ recovery SP to see who did better. Pelf of course killed Baker last year even though he was pretty bad. The Twins now put up with the rough season of Pelf's recovery and now they feel obligated to bring him back and roll the dice when the better part of the recovery comes with the bionic arm (or so we hope). The Twins know Pelf, feel comfortable with him, and now want to reap the rewards.

    2. I think Pelfrey feels obligated to the Twins in turn. The Twins took a chance on him last year, kept him in the rotation all year, and gave him every chance to succeed. He wasn't badgered even with a bad year. He felt relaxed here and ended up liking it here. He now wants to reward the team for taking a chance on him recovering from TJ to hopefully give them what could be two of the best years of his career post TJ (that's a big IF about the two years being two of the best). He's loyal because the Twins took a chance on him.

    It's a marriage of one party wanting to stay with the other party due to what could be and being comfortable and the other party wanting to remain loyal.

    We'll see if the marriage works if it ends in divorce.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    365
    Like
    60
    Liked 65 Times in 44 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrylos View Post
    Nah.

    That is not the point. The point was what made the Santana Mauer and Morneau and Gardernhire and Ryan teams different than the Puckett, Hrbek, Viola, Knoblauch, TK and MacPhail teams.

    They both had talent, so the "ERA, FIP, Strikeouts" etc were all taken care.

    What made one group of TALENTED Twins' teams win 2 World Series in 4 years vs the other group of (potentially more) talented Twins' teams be one and out post-season losers.

    This is the point of discussion.
    Thyrlos,

    I love what you write and agree with you 9 times out of 10 and maybe we agree on this more than I realize or maybe I just have a bug up my rear I don't know. I'm just not buying the awesome chemistry that Pelfrey brings to the Twins. If he was so charismatic how is it the Twins managed to lose 90 games with him on the team? If Mauer and company are so devoid of chemistry shouldn't we be trading them for guys with the magical stuff? If the Twins of the past had so much chemistry why didn't they win the world series every year? I think the conclusions you are making cannot be made based on something that appears to happen randomly and or variably.

    Is this not the chicken and the egg theory. Is it winning that creates chemistry or chemistry that creates winning? Is the world series winner the team with the most chemistry? How much more chemistry does Pelfrey bring versus Diamond or Albers? Is chemistry even quantifiable?

    I can agree that chemistry helps a team and can be a powerful component in winning teams but the team with the greatest chemistry in MLB could be one of the worst teams and not the best so it doesn't automatically make you a winner. How many teams have bad chemistry? are they only the ones that are losing? How is it that teams with bad chemistry become winning teams even with virtually the same players on the team?

    As for those that like the fiery personalities, those are often the ones that are the most divisive in the club house and are anti chemistry. So I am a little confused in that regard. As I stated early on in this thread I don't get the article and even after you have tried your best to explain it to me I still don't get it.

  9. #29
    Twins Moderator MVP ashburyjohn's Avatar
    Posts
    8,567
    Like
    2,580
    Liked 3,192 Times in 1,697 Posts
    Blog Entries
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrylos View Post
    And the Twins for the last 20 years do not care.
    Moderator's note: let's leave out the mind-reading, please, as well as the hyperbole.

  10. This user likes ashburyjohn's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    glunn (12-21-2013)

  11. #30
    Banned All-Star
    Posts
    1,498
    Like
    419
    Liked 75 Times in 49 Posts
    4.48/1065innings/607Ks/1.45 WHIP, and a good club house guy
    or would you rather have
    4.14/963 In/776Ks/1.23 WHIP?
    Last edited by johnnydakota; 12-20-2013 at 09:31 PM.

  12. #31
    When Hughes signed there was all this talk about getting him in his prime years and the potential for him to out perform his contract because of that, he'll turn 28 next year.

    Pelfrey signed a lesser contract and will be 29 next season. He's in his prime years also. That's why I like his signing over Arroyo.

  13. #32
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,641
    Like
    9
    Liked 53 Times in 34 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnydakota View Post
    4.48/1065innings/607Ks/1.45 WHIP, and a good club house guy
    or would you rather have
    4.14/963 In/776Ks/1.23 WHIP?
    With a poor ofense it might not matter between those two pitchers. Plenty other statistics would also be missing to make a determination of which pitcher would be prefereable. One would certainly hope that a GM other than Moore would make decisions based on a few statistics.
    There is a difference of 100 innings there. If those missing innings were starts and you had to start a PJ Walters then the statistics would favor Pelfrey. Your team would be better off.
    Last edited by old nurse; 12-21-2013 at 04:46 AM.

  14. #33
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    204
    Like
    106
    Liked 22 Times in 15 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrylos View Post
    I would not compare apples:


    to oranges



    As far as winning goes.


    And the different results of these 2 groupings make this false:



    To go from being a competitive team for 4 seasons with one and outs in the post-season to wining 2 World Series in 4 seasons, apparently you need more than talent.

    in 1987 and 1991, the Twins did not have the AL Cy Young and AL MVP play in the same team. In 2006 they did. Arguably, the 2006 team was more talented than either of the World Series teams. Why did they not win? Not because of talent it seems...

    Heart, Chemistry and Desire to win are huge as well...

    Or find me another explanation about the postseason Gardenhire loser teams, which does not involve "luck", "dice" or "the Yankees".

    I am all ears.
    I would argue that the Twins won in 1987 because their division was so bad. Then they won 2 post-season series. The worse record on the road ever for a WS champion. After the fact you could say they had chemistry.

    The Twins should have made it to 1 WS this past decade.

  15. #34
    I have no real expertise in team chemistry. I have to admit to assuming I could offer some insight on chemistry based on corporate leadership and consulting experience. This is a phenomenally complex topic. It would require considerable expertise in both areas to be qualified to compare and contrast the two.

    Chemistry gets brought up a lot in interviews with managers. And, there are a lot of well respected managers, (MLB) and coaches (NBA) that seem to think team chemistry is a relevent issue. Somehow the measuring stick became the "primary measure". The internet is a poor medium and a contributing factor to a decision somehow becomes the only consideration. Of course, I am exaggerating a bit for effect.

    I have to admit to assuming based interviews with managers there were similarities to the impact of culture on corporate performance and team chemistry. Somewhere there must be a former MLB player who went to have corporate success that could provide an opinion. The rest of us are not really qualified. I know a former NFL player that fits this profile. I will ask his opinion but it seems that the NFL and MLB are sufficiently different that we should not draw that parallel.

  16. #35
    Knoblauch never played with Gaetti.

  17. #36
    Constantly we hear this tripe in MN sports. I swear being "a good guy" is enough to get you millions of dollars playing for ANY of the professional sports teams. Here's a little wake up call SUPREME TALENT wins not SUPREME CHEMISTRY. Besides if you're team has a strong leader even "bad apples" will fall in line.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.