The Twins Are Placing a Clear Focus on Intangible Traits

Nice post. I believe that positive energy has an impact. 

Great comments from Pablo regarding C4.

Also lends to the reason they haven’t been tied to some players over the years in free agency, like Clevinger or Bauer or Chapman. They want good people in the clubhouse. That’s a good thing 

The culture/values of an organization/clubhouse is probably as important to success as some physical skills. 

4 minutes ago, Johnny Ringo said:

You never know about these things. Take the '87 Twins for example.  Hrbek and Gaetti had their little cabal (Bruno, Bush). However Kirby, at best, was a fringe member of that,  Viola was in his own orbit. Bert was in a different one. Senor Smoke was carrying state secrets and a huge bag of potato chips in his famous silver briefcase. Everyone was terrified of Don Baylor. Gladden hated Lombo. Everybody hated Gladden.

The truth of the matter is if you look at the list of the best players of all-time, there are a lot of dubious characters in there and even a few reprehensible ones.

Being nice is great. Being great is nicer. 

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

Excellent article. Thank you for writing so very well about this important subject. I have found this to be true in other organizations in which I have been a member, such as my law firm, my church, my civic clubs, and when I was in the army.  A good leader leads by example and pulls the others along in the right direction toward the ultimate goal, whatever that may be. 

21 minutes ago, Johnny Ringo said:

You never know about these things. Take the '87 Twins for example.  Hrbek and Gaetti had their little cabal (Bruno, Bush). However Kirby, at best, was a fringe member of that,  Viola was in his own orbit. Bert was in a different one. Senor Smoke was carrying state secrets and a huge bag of potato chips in his famous silver briefcase. Everyone was terrified of Don Baylor. Gladden hated Lombo. Everybody hated Gladden.

The truth of the matter is if you look at the list of the best players of all-time, there are a lot of dubious characters in there and even a few reprehensible ones.

Being nice is great. Being great is nicer. 

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.

No question having good vibes in the club house with everyone having each others back keeps confidence up in a sport where failure can run rampant.  Having players like Cruz, Correa and Gray and many others say they enjoyed their time in Minnesota and say good things about the Team and organization in general when they leave, makes the Twins a team players like to play for.  Guys with good attitudes generally also have a good work ethic and just bring positive energy which is important in a long grueling season. 

I see the value. I see the importance, but being a nice, team player etc. doesn't make you a good baseball player.  You have to have some crazy good talent to get there.  Players come from all over the world, have all kinds of different personalities and beliefs about how the world should work.  It is the talent they bring that makes them valuable regardless of personality.

Sure if you have two players of fairly equal skill and one looks like a better fit for the clubhouse go with the guy that fits.  Sure getting a bad apple can really mess up team chemistry, but how many bad apples are out there?  It seems about 90% of the players are well liked or at the vary least aren't clubhouse disrupters.  It doesn't feel like this a "huge" problem in baseball.

Yes having good team chemistry is important and when it creates a band of brothers mentality a team can be greater than the individual talent that makes it up,  but it is only one component of many that go into winning.  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.

1 hour ago, Hrbeks Divot said:

I think it’s another thing small and mid market teams need to get right. If you’re the Yankees you can more easily buy your way out of Donaldson if you don’t like the fit. If you’re the Twins it’s a much tougher pill to swallow when trading or buying your way out.  And let’s be honest, we’re MN. We like nice. 😊 

The Twins have had their share of great people as leaders. Harmon Killebrew was about as nice a person as you would ever want to meet (having met him years ago). Tony Oliva is/was the same way. Kirby Puckett always had a smile on his face, and Joe Mauer embodied humble class - four HOFers cut from the same cloth.

5 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

If you're going to be relying on younger players and guys coming up through your system, it makes sense that when you're picking your vets to come in and fill roles that you would look for guys that are going to have additional character traits and intangibles to bring to the table. While some young players are ready to be leaders out the gate, most aren't. And even ones with huge talent and the right makeup to excel can benefit be having mentors to show them all sorts of little tricks and habits that might otherwise take years to develop.

Sometimes a couple of a$$holes can crash a team, especially over the long grind of a season. You shouldn't pass on a superior talent for a lesser one just because the lesser talent is a good guy and the much better player has a reputation for being difficult, but limiting the number of jackwagons on a squad is often a good call. 

Good team guys can come in on a one-year deal or after a trade and be fine. The prickly/disgruntled/cranky guys can't always do that. Selfishness can rub off on people. 

 

Intangible sounds like a word you use when you didn't have the money in the off-season to sign talent ..

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

I love your story. These type of examples add color to a post and make them enjoyable to read.  

However... Sgt. Duckett is Rocco Baldelli. 

Jay Jackson, Carlos Santana, Emilio Pagan... They are Bob From New Jersey, Levon from Georgia and Steve from North Dakota... they are standing right next to you getting motivated by to Sgt. Duckett. 

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.

3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

How many leaders do they need? Outside Wallner and Julien, who is young and not a leader? Because we're told Lewis is one.

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.