The Twins Are Placing a Clear Focus on Intangible Traits

[Riverbrian]

5 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

That's not how the military works, even in boot camp.  With in two weeks of starting boot camp certain people are selected to fill leadership roles within your squad and assigned titles, roles and insignia on the uniform.  Sgt Duckett is more CEO sorting his organization than a dictator that controls every move.  Leadership roles are assigned and grown from the very beginning.  Jay Jackson, Carlos Santana, Emilio Pagan are more like division yoeman, master at arms and port watch section leader, to borrow lingo from a past life.  They are leadership roles.

Then, when you get to a duty station and probably start in the toilet cleaning brigade, a guy who has been on station one single day longer than you is in charge of showing you how the mop buckets work.  And so on goes the military leadership growth, until the model loses effectivness in the very upper levels, IMO.  It's not an effective model for a sports team or most businesses, but the fundamentals are the same.

I was just responding to the usage of Sgt. Duckett to clubhouse leadership. I always appreciate those style posts because they make the discussion more interesting. 

I wouldn't have the military experience to dispute anything that you have added but I will say to you and all who served. "Thank You For Service". 

 

[Mike Sixel]

17 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

That's not how the military works, even in boot camp.  With in two weeks of starting boot camp certain people are selected to fill leadership roles within your squad and assigned titles, roles and insignia on the uniform.  Sgt Duckett is more CEO sorting his organization than a dictator that controls every move.  Leadership roles are assigned and grown from the very beginning.  Jay Jackson, Carlos Santana, Emilio Pagan are more like division yoeman, master at arms and port watch section leader, to borrow lingo from a past life.  They are leadership roles.

Then, when you get to a duty station and probably start in the toilet cleaning brigade, a guy who has been on station one single day longer than you is in charge of showing you how the mop buckets work.  And so on goes the military leadership growth, until the model loses effectivness in the very upper levels, IMO.  It's not an effective model for a sports team or most businesses, but the fundamentals are the same.

Lewis might actually be, but he's an outlier.  Even if he is, Correa will still box his ears if needed. Jax may be but he was one who was very fond of Pagan. Maybe he's ready to take the role from Pagan?  Other than that it's easier to look at the 40 man and say who might be rather than who's not.  I don't see too many in the mold that would be. Even alphas sort amongst themselves.

That's why the timing of this is so critical. There are so many young guys being relied on that don't have any idea what they are getting in to that need a veteran hand to show the way.  The Jackson's and Santana's have to produce, to be sure, but this roster is in a very impressionable state.  It's very smart to control who is molding those impressions with your culture.  

Which young guys? Wallner, Julien and ? Buxton, Kepler, CC, Vazquez, Farmer, Santana are long time vets. Jeffers isn't young in terms of MLB experience and has Vazquez. I'll give you AK also.....

On the pitching side? Ober and ? are young?

[chpettit19]

23 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

That's why the timing of this is so critical. There are so many young guys being relied on that don't have any idea what they are getting in to that need a veteran hand to show the way.  The Jackson's and Santana's have to produce, to be sure, but this roster is in a very impressionable state.  It's very smart to control who is molding those impressions with your culture.  

Having leadership is obviously important, but do you think Jackson and Santana were needed for leadership so much that their talent shouldn't be the first consideration? I'm not saying the Twins don't think both will be very good, or that fans shouldn't think that (I do question their talent), but are Jax, Lopez, Paddack, Staumont, Stewart, DeSclafani, and Thielbar not enough leadership for the pitching staff? That's a lot of MLB experience right there. Did they really need Jackson to hold the young guy's hands? Are Vazquez, Correa, Farmer, Kepler, and Buxton not enough to lead the hitters room? That's a whole lot of MLB experience there. Did they really need Santana to help mold guys?

There's definitely a bunch of young talent on this team, but there's also a whole lot of veterans, too. Santana leading while OPSing under .700 doesn't feel like a better fit than someone like Soler who has 10 years of MLB experience himself, but also carries a much bigger stick. Jeffers, Kirilloff, Larnach, Gordon, Castro, Lewis, and Miranda all have multiple MLB seasons under their belts (not always full years, but they've been around). Definitely still some youth in there, but it's not like they're getting their first taste of the big leagues. Ober, Winder, Topa, Ryan, Alcala, and Duran have multiple years in MLB. Still some youth there, but they're not rookies by any means. 

This team feels like it already had a whole bunch of veteran leadership on hand. I assume the Twins think Jackson and Santana are going to be good at baseball this year, but I hope they didn't give them an extra boost for leadership when they already have so many vets on the squad. Vazquez, Correa, Buxton, Farmer, and Lopez should be able to lead the clubhouse pretty well on their own I'd think.

[Jocko87]

The most important thing is that they can perform well enough to deserve the spot on the 26 man roster.  It starts there.  What we are talking about is intangibles and side benefits which assumes they are performing at the appropriate level.  It's two different discussions.

Please understand, experience and time in seat does not automatically give someone these skills.  Listing the players that have been around for a while is not a discussion of leadership.  The reality is there is only room for about 4-5 guys like this, any more and messages get confused and diluted.  Some do it on a more individual level, think Farmer and Julien, while the real top dogs effect the whole team (Correa, probably Pablo).  Lewis may well be a tremendous leader and develop into a whole team guy, but he will likely always defer to Correa.  (By the way, Correa has someone he defers to as well.  That person may not even be in the organization.  Baldelli certainly, but I'm sure there is someone else he turns to or tells him to straighten out.)

Jackson and Santana would fit in the category of effecting their groups, bullpen and hitting/1B.  Santana instantly assumes the role, Jackson will have to work into it.  Track record and known quantity are important.  Santana and Jackson are completely different as we know what Santana gives vs thinking Jackson will do it.  From what I have heard about Jackson, he's been through some s**t.  And that's valuable.

One of the best things the Santana will bring is the type of at bat he takes.  If he can help the kids through our biggest frustration point his time here will be valuable, even if he slips into a part time role.  There are things that can only be explained by someone who has 8k+ MLB PA, or at least much easier translation.  That he has those 8k PA, and the reputation of a leader and teacher is a very exciting fit for this roster.  The goal is for AK and Miranda etc to be so good Santana is a part timer. 

 

[Pat]

It only takes one or two disgruntled guys to sink a team.  Look what happened when the Twins traded Tom Brunansky to the Cardinals for  Tommy Herr in 1988.  Herr pretty much destroyed the chemistry in the clubhouse and even though the Twins won more games in 1988 than they did in1987, they were never really in it after the trade.  Every body needs to grab an oar if the boat is to move.

[RpR]

The old saying: The devil is in the details.

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I was watching the Top 100 Right Now show on MLB Network last night (they did numbers 80 to 61). They had a segment of the show where they brought in Dan O'Dowd and Steve Phillips to talk about how teams rank players/make decisions on players (they're both former GMs if you don't know who they are). O'Dowd started it off by talking about looking at production/performance/etc. projection and deciding who's going to be the best player moving forward then talked about the intangibles and how they'd take those into account. Phillips came next and started off by basically saying "intangibles are nice, but give me the performance all day." They went back and forth basically agreeing that performance/talent is the first, second, and third thing in the pecking order, and then you go to the intangibles after that as the separator. 

Intangibles are nice. They're important, and shouldn't be ignored. But talent is what wins baseball games. I'm glad the Twins are taking it all into consideration, but if they chose Santana over Soler (not saying they did, just an example) because they think Santana has better intangibles despite Soler being the much better hitter I'd be pretty annoyed. Intangibles need to be secondary to actual baseball talent.

Yep

Without details of special circumstances - All things being equal - A tiebreaker. 

If you have two golden lab puppies to choose from that look identical. One behaves while the other destroys your socks. 

Most would take the one without a sock in it's mouth.  

[chpettit19]

49 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

The most important thing is that they can perform well enough to deserve the spot on the 26 man roster.  It starts there.  What we are talking about is intangibles and side benefits which assumes they are performing at the appropriate level.  It's two different discussions.

Please understand, experience and time in seat does not automatically give someone these skills.  Listing the players that have been around for a while is not a discussion of leadership.  The reality is there is only room for about 4-5 guys like this, any more and messages get confused and diluted.  Some do it on a more individual level, think Farmer and Julien, while the real top dogs effect the whole team (Correa, probably Pablo).  Lewis may well be a tremendous leader and develop into a whole team guy, but he will likely always defer to Correa.  (By the way, Correa has someone he defers to as well.  That person may not even be in the organization.  Baldelli certainly, but I'm sure there is someone else he turns to or tells him to straighten out.)

Jackson and Santana would fit in the category of effecting their groups, bullpen and hitting/1B.  Santana instantly assumes the role, Jackson will have to work into it.  Track record and known quantity are important.  Santana and Jackson are completely different as we know what Santana gives vs thinking Jackson will do it.  From what I have heard about Jackson, he's been through some s**t.  And that's valuable.

One of the best things the Santana will bring is the type of at bat he takes.  If he can help the kids through our biggest frustration point his time here will be valuable, even if he slips into a part time role.  There are things that can only be explained by someone who has 8k+ MLB PA, or at least much easier translation.  That he has those 8k PA, and the reputation of a leader and teacher is a very exciting fit for this roster.  The goal is for AK and Miranda etc to be so good Santana is a part timer. 

 

Luis Arraez brought a different type of at bat than other guys. Correa takes different kinds of at bats. Kepler takes different kinds of at bats. I think you're overselling the impact someone like Santana can have. Matt Wallner isn't going to suddenly K at a 20% clip because of anything Santana says or does. Julien isn't going to change his approach. Maybe Kirilloff picks up some fielding tips? That sounds reasonable.

I disagree with the idea that certain things can only be explained by someone with 8k+ MLB PAs. 100% disagree with that. Charlie Manuel is the highest regarded "hitting helper" (he was a manager for a long time so don't want to just call him a hitting coach) of the last 30 years or so from what I've read and heard. He had 432 MLB PAs. Barry Bonds was a horrible hitting coach and he had over 12k. Kevin Long is widely considered among the best hitting coaches right now and he had 0 MLB PAs. Kevin Seitzer is another name that comes up in discussions of the best hitting coaches right now (I think he's the current longest tenured hitting coach, but could be wrong there) and he had 6k. I think you're drastically overselling that idea.

Nick Saban is widely considered the best college football coach of all time. He played 3 seasons at Kent State. Bill Belichick is in the discussion for best NFL coach ever and he didn't play a snap in the NFL.

[DocBauer]

I like a team with "good guys" on it. I think it helps the team to work and pull together toward a common goal. I like having some good veteran leaders around for younger players, in the case of the Twins, guys like Wallner, Julien, Lewis, Lee, Kirilloff, etc. That doesn't mean those young men have issues, or need to be lead around on a leash by a veteran, it just means they have a guy they can ask questions of, see how a ML veteran works and adapts, etc.

But you still need talent to win. If a guy has a really bad attitude, is a real prima dona and pore example, he might not make it despite talent. And he might not last long either. 

Player X is a 9 in talent but a 6 in personality and work ethic and leadership. Player Y is a 8 talent but also an 8 in personality, work ethic, and leadership. I take player Y every time. Nothing says you can't have the best of both worlds in your players, and on your roster. 

[LastOnePicked]

7 hours ago, Dman said:

Do I like that the Twins have created a good culture for the team and its employee's?  Do I think having a manager who helps create good chemistry is important?  Do I think players perform better when there is little to no conflict amongst them?  I do think those things are important and that they help.  However I still think talent is the most important thing.  Great talent is the rarest commodity in baseball and we see how much teams are willing to pay for unique talent because that is what wins games and championships. Intangibles are nice addon qualities, but they only take you so far.

This.

I get the points Nick is raising. I also like these Twins a lot. I'm hoping that the skepticism I feel creeping back in can be pushed off for another year. BUT ... it's a manager's job to manage talent. In fact, in an age where on-field decisions about length of starts and lineups can be dictated by the front office, the manager's interpersonal leadership skills are even more important. That work cannot always be handed to a veteran.

I'm just hoping that Falvey/Levine aren't choosing "clubhouse character" over raw talent. It's your staff's job to shape that talent into professional skill. There are no nice-guy awards for super-harmonious teams - there's only the World Series trophy. I'd like to see that come here again.

[Jocko87]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Luis Arraez brought a different type of at bat than other guys. Correa takes different kinds of at bats. Kepler takes different kinds of at bats. I think you're overselling the impact someone like Santana can have. Matt Wallner isn't going to suddenly K at a 20% clip because of anything Santana says or does. Julien isn't going to change his approach. Maybe Kirilloff picks up some fielding tips? That sounds reasonable.

I disagree with the idea that certain things can only be explained by someone with 8k+ MLB PAs. 100% disagree with that. Charlie Manuel is the highest regarded "hitting helper" (he was a manager for a long time so don't want to just call him a hitting coach) of the last 30 years or so from what I've read and heard. He had 432 MLB PAs. Barry Bonds was a horrible hitting coach and he had over 12k. Kevin Long is widely considered among the best hitting coaches right now and he had 0 MLB PAs. Kevin Seitzer is another name that comes up in discussions of the best hitting coaches right now (I think he's the current longest tenured hitting coach, but could be wrong there) and he had 6k. I think you're drastically overselling that idea.

Nick Saban is widely considered the best college football coach of all time. He played 3 seasons at Kent State. Bill Belichick is in the discussion for best NFL coach ever and he didn't play a snap in the NFL.

We have disagreed on the relative effectiveness of coaching so I don't expect us to align on this. Nice to see you crediting some coaching though.  

Individual anecdotes of various success or failure mean nothing in this discussion, other than to illustrate my point that it does matter when the circumstances are right.

I didn't say it in this thread so I'll drop it here.  This was from another Santana discussion.

Quote

Popkins had two cups of coffee an AA, Santana has over 8100 major league plate appearances.  I'm not one that would say you have to have that experience to coach or lead, quite the opposite in fact.  What you have to do is figure out how to fill in your gaps. Popkins gap is experience. It's a hand in glove.

Charlie Manuel may not have the at bats, but he had to fill the gap somehow.  At every stage of leadership, you have to lead another thing from outside your level of technical expertise.  When you get to a director level or therabouts, you are so far from your original technical expertise that it fades and changes and you are no longer an expert.  It's similar in sports except they stay closer to expertise, Rocco had to learn pitching but he doesn't have to take on TV deal negotiations.  Pitching is something he's very familiar with but it's not his core expertise.  Doesn't mean he can't learn to mismanage a bullpen like anyone else.  (That was sarcasm, mostly)

What Santana can do is turn lights on for people. Like the aha moments.  One of my favorite management techniques is the continuous question.   My technical expertise is as an integration troubleshooter, if that helps to understand how I look at things. I still work in that technical field sorta and help with troubleshooting from time to time even though I've long since put away my tools.  The continuous question is nothing but an effort to have the technician explain it to me like I'm 5.  They are two days deep into troubleshooting and I'm barely aware of what they are working on but the conversation is designed to trigger the thought in their mind, not mine. 

I was first aware of this when I had something of a hot head working for me.  He had his aha moment, cussed a blue streak and snatched his prints and headed back the aircraft.  An hour later everything was fixed.  To this day, I don't know what I triggered but from his reaction I assume it was something he forgot.  I was just earnestly asking questions to try to catch up.

When you hear stories about talking hitting with Rod Carew or Ichiro it's not the thing that Rod told them to do that is the value.  It's the thing they picked up that makes something they are already thinking or partially understand crystal clear.  

I don't expect all the guys you mentioned to suddenly start trying to emulate Santana, but I do expect the overall quality of at bat to be much better this year.  There will be several reasons and we will never know exactly why but I promise you, Santana will be a factor.  He's a force multiplier.  

[tony&rodney]

3 hours ago, Pat said:

It only takes one or two disgruntled guys to sink a team.  Look what happened when the Twins traded Tom Brunansky to the Cardinals for  Tommy Herr in 1988.  Herr pretty much destroyed the chemistry in the clubhouse and even though the Twins won more games in 1988 than they did in1987, they were never really in it after the trade.  Every body needs to grab an oar if the boat is to move.

Tommy Herr is an interesting example. He was loved and lauded as one of the most loved players and looked up to on that 1987 Cardinals team. The optimum character guy for those who value that highly. The Twins loved Brunansky too. It just seemed like a classic need for need trade. One thing though - Herr was devastated as was his wife. He could not fathom being traded. He took a full season plus to get his head back together. Baseball is a tough business. The teams talk all smooth but business is their gig. 

[tarheeltwinsfan]

7 hours ago, roger said:

Great comment, tarheel.  I don't remember a lot of names, but I remember Sargent Moore from nearly 60 years ago.  I was fortunate regarding the weather, did my training at Fort Ord the summer of 1967.

We were in the army same time. I joined the army as an enlisted man in September 1967, went to Ft Dix for basic and advanced infantry training and then to Korea for 16 months in and around the DMZ with the Second Infantry Division. Came home in June 1969.  

[chpettit19]

34 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

We have disagreed on the relative effectiveness of coaching so I don't expect us to align on this. Nice to see you crediting some coaching though.  

Individual anecdotes of various success or failure mean nothing in this discussion, other than to illustrate my point that it does matter when the circumstances are right.

I didn't say it in this thread so I'll drop it here.  This was from another Santana discussion.

Charlie Manuel may not have the at bats, but he had to fill the gap somehow.  At every stage of leadership, you have to lead another thing from outside your level of technical expertise.  When you get to a director level or therabouts, you are so far from your original technical expertise that it fades and changes and you are no longer an expert.  It's similar in sports except they stay closer to expertise, Rocco had to learn pitching but he doesn't have to take on TV deal negotiations.  Pitching is something he's very familiar with but it's not his core expertise.  Doesn't mean he can't learn to mismanage a bullpen like anyone else.  (That was sarcasm, mostly)

What Santana can do is turn lights on for people. Like the aha moments.  One of my favorite management techniques is the continuous question.   My technical expertise is as an integration troubleshooter, if that helps to understand how I look at things. I still work in that technical field sorta and help with troubleshooting from time to time even though I've long since put away my tools.  The continuous question is nothing but an effort to have the technician explain it to me like I'm 5.  They are two days deep into troubleshooting and I'm barely aware of what they are working on but the conversation is designed to trigger the thought in their mind, not mine. 

I was first aware of this when I had something of a hot head working for me.  He had his aha moment, cussed a blue streak and snatched his prints and headed back the aircraft.  An hour later everything was fixed.  To this day, I don't know what I triggered but from his reaction I assume it was something he forgot.  I was just earnestly asking questions to try to catch up.

When you hear stories about talking hitting with Rod Carew or Ichiro it's not the thing that Rod told them to do that is the value.  It's the thing they picked up that makes something they are already thinking or partially understand crystal clear.  

I don't expect all the guys you mentioned to suddenly start trying to emulate Santana, but I do expect the overall quality of at bat to be much better this year.  There will be several reasons and we will never know exactly why but I promise you, Santana will be a factor.  He's a force multiplier.  

I don't know how personalized aircraft fixing techniques are so I'm not sure how well that analogy works for hitting. I don't know that the Brewers saw some big improvement in their ABs last year when Santana got moved there. But maybe they did.

Having more smart guys who can talk hitting is good. But I don't expect to see a significant shift in the style of at bats anyone on the Twins has this year. They all got to the majors doing things the way that works best for them. I hope you're right and we see an improvement in the quality of at bats, but the idea that Santana is going to have some outsized impact just doesn't track with me. It's not like he's going to be standing around the cages talking to every guy as they take BP. Professional athletes are confident people and believe in what they're doing. The Twins don't have a lot of guys expected to struggle on their team anymore so none of them are going to be looking to make any sort of dramatic changes. They're going to keep doing what got them here. 

And even if guys do want to try to do things more like him it doesn't mean they have the ability to. Hitting is incredibly individualized. What works for 1 guy doesn't work for another. I hope he says something that helps things click into place for a guy or 5, but it's highly unlikely. I hope they're all able to take something from each other's game/style and work to be the best they can possibly be. I just don't believe one player is showing up in a clubhouse and changing things in any significant way like that. There's a reason the average tenure for active MLB hitting coaches is 2.4 years. And those are guys that are paying individualized attention to everyone. It's just really hard to have that teamwide of an effect. But I do appreciate his approach and hope he's as helpful as you believe he will be.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

10 hours ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

Good leaders aren't always nice. They motivate by example. I hated my drill instructor in basic training. Sargent Duckett was not nice to us. I remember one cold, rainy December morning at 0600 hours in the dark before dawn at Ft. Dix, as we stood in the soaking, freezing, cold sleet and rain, dreading a long day ahead of hard physical training in this weather, he told us: "Gentlemen, Let's get going. It does not rain on the infantry." And the interesting thing was, even though I was "Outstanding in the rain"...I believed him. But in 8 weeks he broke me down from being a smart-ass college graduate and made me a soldier who obeyed orders without question and who was prepared, and willing, to kill the enemy, whoever that may be. He'd yell: "What's the spirit of the bayonet! and we'd scream, "TO KILL!" Friends, that is no small feat.  Sgt Duckett was a motivator and a leader. He was "outstanding in the rain" with us.

Anyone can get around on a fastball. Like most, the problem with Sgt. Duckett was that he couldn’t hit the breaking pitch

[Jocko87]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't know how personalized aircraft fixing techniques are so I'm not sure how well that analogy works for hitting. I don't know that the Brewers saw some big improvement in their ABs last year when Santana got moved there. But maybe they did.

Having more smart guys who can talk hitting is good. But I don't expect to see a significant shift in the style of at bats anyone on the Twins has this year. They all got to the majors doing things the way that works best for them. I hope you're right and we see an improvement in the quality of at bats, but the idea that Santana is going to have some outsized impact just doesn't track with me. It's not like he's going to be standing around the cages talking to every guy as they take BP. Professional athletes are confident people and believe in what they're doing. The Twins don't have a lot of guys expected to struggle on their team anymore so none of them are going to be looking to make any sort of dramatic changes. They're going to keep doing what got them here. 

And even if guys do want to try to do things more like him it doesn't mean they have the ability to. Hitting is incredibly individualized. What works for 1 guy doesn't work for another. I hope he says something that helps things click into place for a guy or 5, but it's highly unlikely. I hope they're all able to take something from each other's game/style and work to be the best they can possibly be. I just don't believe one player is showing up in a clubhouse and changing things in any significant way like that. There's a reason the average tenure for active MLB hitting coaches is 2.4 years. And those are guys that are paying individualized attention to everyone. It's just really hard to have that teamwide of an effect. But I do appreciate his approach and hope he's as helpful as you believe he will be.

The things I'm talking about aren't specific to any industry but I did happen on a couple sports examples that are very fresh.  Justin Turner perfectly describes the mechanism I'm talking about.  Good interview, pertinent part is 3:00.

https://www.mlb.com/video/justin-turner-on-signing-with-the-blue-jays

And this, from Puka Nacua, is the exact impression a small interaction with the vet can leave.  I can't find video yet but I doubt Cooper Kupp said it in as plain of language as described.  A different veteran reaction might have worsened the problem.  These things are not measurable, don't account for the difference between a Santana and a Soler but they are critically important and we will never know how much to value them.  Similar to coaching, the negative can have more effect than the positive. 

[Dlee]

The mind and spirit is something that can't be ignored.  some may need more and others are the catalyst. 

[Riverbrian]

13 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't know that the Brewers saw some big improvement in their ABs last year when Santana got moved there. But maybe they did.

The Brewers: 

2022 - .724 Team OPS

2023 - .704 Team OPS

The pitching improved though. 😁

[chpettit19]

12 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

The things I'm talking about aren't specific to any industry but I did happen on a couple sports examples that are very fresh.  Justin Turner perfectly describes the mechanism I'm talking about.  Good interview, pertinent part is 3:00.

https://www.mlb.com/video/justin-turner-on-signing-with-the-blue-jays

And this, from Puka Nacua, is the exact impression a small interaction with the vet can leave.  I can't find video yet but I doubt Cooper Kupp said it in as plain of language as described.  A different veteran reaction might have worsened the problem.  These things are not measurable, don't account for the difference between a Santana and a Soler but they are critically important and we will never know how much to value them.  Similar to coaching, the negative can have more effect than the positive. 

I'm just going to say Puka not staying up late anymore is quite different than him changing how he ran routes or got off the line or any other part of actually playing WR. If the Twins need Carlos Santana to come in and fix how late guys stay up they need to quit talking about Correa, Buxton, and Lopez as leaders. Yes, veteran leadership to show guys how to prepare is important. Not disagreeing at all. Creating a good clubhouse with guys who are capable of preparing on their own without heavy-handed leadership from the coaching staff is important, and veterans tend to drive that by showing the young guys how they go about their business. Not disagreeing with that. What I disagree with is that Santana is going to come in and change anyone's hitting.

I'm not disagreeing that having smart hitters around to talk hitting is useful, but you stated that the Twins were going to have better overall quality of at bats this year and want to tie that largely to Santana. I just think you're overselling his, or any player's, impact on that. Just like Turner isn't going to suddenly change the quality of at bat in Toronto. Boston had a worse wRC+ in 2023 with Turner than they did in 2022 without him. Their BB% and K% were nearly identical year over year. Turner didn't seem to make any drastic changes there. Milwaukee's wRC+ went down significantly, but Santana was only there half the year. It's good to have these guys on your team, but expecting them to make team wide, noticeable differences is just a bridge too far for me. I'm glad he brings leadership, and a good approach at the plate, but I'd much rather have a guy who performs better than Santana is likely to at this stage than someone who can talk hitting. If his ability to talk hitting is what you want just hire him as a coach and get a better player in the lineup. The Twins have enough leaders, what they need is more talent.

[DJL44]

I think being a good teammate is considered more important when you're looking for bench players. If you're a superstar and you go out every day and produce people will overlook a lot of bad behavior.

It's clear that clubhouse chemistry is not valued particularly highly on the open market. If it was the Twins wouldn't be able to afford any of these guys.

[Fred]

On 2/8/2024 at 8:42 AM, Cory Engelhardt said:

You can have personality and still be great in a clubhouse. 
 

I have to paraphrase, because it was so long ago. In the pre-DH Era, Billy Martin said if he had 8 .300 hitters that hated each other he'd have a pretty good ballclub.

[RpR]

Just now, Fred said:

I have to paraphrase, because it was so long ago. In the pre-DH Era, Billy Martin said if he had 8 .300 hitters that hated each other he'd have a pretty good ballclub.

Billy Martin was an ornery SOB, no manager could have fist fight with a player nowadays and not have the league get apoplectic.

ONLY a manager similar to Martin could take a team of nasty mongrels (generic team) and still be a top team.

[Linus]

It’s not news that the Twins may be taking intangibles into account. It’s been a part of scouting players forever - called “makeup” by scouts. At the end of the day give me talent - Rocco gets paid to take care of the rest. 

[Schmoeman5]

23 hours ago, RpR said:

Billy Martin was an ornery SOB, no manager could have fist fight with a player nowadays and not have the league get apoplectic.

ONLY a manager similar to Martin could take a team of nasty mongrels (generic team) and still be a top team.

What generic team did Billy Martin ever take to the top? And this article if read. Tells you in the paragraph from Varland and Wallner, who the clubhouse leader was. Some of the others are leaders when the camera is on. 

[DJL44]

Do nice guys finish last?