La Russa creates, then downplays, clubhouse rift

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by albatross11

More on this "silliness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unwrit...es_of_baseball

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unspoken_rule

Yeah, don't forget the thread is about how La Russa mismanaged the situation, publicly abused his player, and possibly created dissension in the clubhouse rather than what unwritten/unspoken rules were involved. Also what his motivation could have been.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by RchW

Any unwritten rules are bad because they are often used wrongly to scapegoat certain people while others are given a pass. Optional enforcement of any rule is always wrong.

My idea of unwritten rules that I like are often from soccer. Playing the ball out when a player is injured and then the other team returning the ball to you when play restarts. Not celebrating when you score against a former team. Rules like that.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by ThatSeventiesGuy

Never could understand why you shouldn't swing at a 3-0 pitch with a big lead if you get something good to hit, though. Isn't that helping the team? I mean, baseball has no time clock, so theoretically a team could come back from 10 runs or more down.

I hope that I have the names right, but I think it was Buck Showalter responding to Sparky Anderson complaining when Bucks team stole bases with a big lead, "I'll tell my guys to stop stealing bases if he will tell his guys to stop hitting home runs."

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Yeah, don't forget the thread is about how La Russa mismanaged the situation, publicly abused his player, and possibly created dissension in the clubhouse rather than what unwritten/unspoken rules were involved. Also what his motivation could have been.

If La Russa mismanaged the situation it's because of the unwritten rules that were involved. I would argue that the unwritten rules are at the heart of this whole conflict because of how La Russa sees them versus how some players, media, and fans see them.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

My idea of unwritten rules that I like are often from soccer. Playing the ball out when a player is injured and then the other team returning the ball to you when play restarts. Not celebrating when you score against a former team. Rules like that.

Yeah, not all unwritten rules are bad. Many of them have to do with good sportsmanship. To label all unwritten rules as bad simply because they're unwritten is silly, imo.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

If La Russa mismanaged the situation it's because of the unwritten rules that were involved. I would argue that the unwritten rules are at the heart of this whole conflict because of how La Russa sees them versus how some players, media, and fans see them.

I grant you that the unwritten rules were at the heart of this thing. But it's how he handled the perceived violation of them that is the heart of this discussion. Or it was.

You may recall my example of a former boss who, instead of confronting a recalcitrant employee, would make snide comments and implied threads about him or her to others. The apparent intention was that the "word" would get around to the person and correct the behavior. I witnessed this several times and never did it work.

So, it was not the violated protocol and standards that my boss erred about; in fact, he was correct in those situations and the people that he did talk to about them agreed with his assessments.

The fact was, however, that he bungled the "people management" part. La Russa is guilty of the same thing but he compounded his error immensely by talking to the media about it.

But, I've said the same thing a number of times now. Perhaps it's better to have the thread continue along the lines of unwritten rules, right or wrong.

[Syd Thrift]

For all the hand-waving people do about virtue signaling, this entire incident was, for Tony LaRussa, a gigantic exercise in that. From the beginning, LaRussa has not particularly cared about wins or losses or even fairness; his thing has been to demonstrate to others that he is a holder of the old beliefs, a vanguard if you will against the youth corrupting the game with their 3-0 swings and their celebrations. He realizes, consciously or subconsciously, that the worst that can be said about him by taking this stand is that he's "old school", but if he does get canned for losing too many games, that dedication to the old guard will get him another gig if he wants it.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I grant you that the unwritten rules were at the heart of this thing. But it's how he handled the perceived violation of them that is the heart of this discussion. Or it was.

You may recall my example of a former boss who, instead of confronting a recalcitrant employee, would make snide comments and implied threads about him or her to others. The apparent intention was that the "word" would get around to the person and correct the behavior. I witnessed this several times and never did it work.

So, it was not the violated protocol and standards that my boss erred about; in fact, he was correct in those situations and the people that he did talk to about them agreed with his assessments.

The fact was, however, that he bungled the "people management" part. La Russa is guilty of the same thing but he compounded his error immensely by talking to the media about it.

But, I've said the same thing a number of times now. Perhaps it's better to have the thread continue along the lines of unwritten rules, right or wrong.

How La Russa handled it is a part of his understanding of the unwritten rules, just like people saying, "Don't call a player out publically," and "Don't publically insult a player," are talking about their understanding of unwritten rules. Because it is an unwritten rule to not call a player out publically. People aren't mad at La Russa because he broke a written rule.

This whole discussion is about whose set of unwritten rules is right.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

From the beginning, LaRussa has not particularly cared about wins or losses or even fairness; his thing has been to demonstrate to others that he is a holder of the old beliefs

Two things can be correct at the same time. I do think, because he is old and his managing style, which has been successful in the past, is anchored in that successful past, that he does want to try and demonstrate that his older style and beliefs can work even with "new school" players. And I also think that he wants to win games. It is 100% possible, and logical, for him to want to do both things. Will he succeed? Time will tell. Thus far his team is one of the best in baseball with the highest run differential in the league and in first place in its division. That may not stick. We'll see as the season plays out.

[Syd Thrift]

If LaRussa cared primarily about wins and losses he'd be in the severe minority of major league managers, who mostly care about a. not getting fired, and b. being able to find the next job if/when they do. That might sound like wins and losses but it's really not. You can be an absolute disaster as a manager and still find work as a bench coach or base coach or roving minor league coach or something if you "play the game by the rules".

[cephasjames]

You didn't say "primarily," you said "particularly." Those are two different words with two different arguments attached to them.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

You didn't say "primarily," you said "particularly." Those are two different words with two different arguments attached to them.

You know this isn't an argument and is barely a statement, right? Also, I chose these words; I said LaRussa didn't "particularly" care about wins and losses because it's clear that he's not eking out extra wins with this manuever, and wins and losses are at best a secondary or tertiary concern for him, compared to the primary concerns of virtue signaling, teaching his players a lesson, or whatever. But even if his #1 gain in this affair was somehow wins and losses, which is most certainly is not, he most certainly is not attempting to win games "in detail", whatever that might mean, he is not attempting to win them to an "unusual degree", unless you were to argue that this was an unusually small effort to win games (which isn't how the word is used), and he was most certainly not specifically attempting to win games with this choice of action (which, in context, is clearly the definition I was using).

Originally Posted by particularly

1: in a particular manner : in detail
2: to an unusual degree
a particularly dry summer
particularly stormy weather
3: in particular : SPECIFICALLY
The tools were useful, particularly the knife.

Originally Posted by particular

1: of, relating to, or being a single person or thing
the particular person I had in mind
2: of, relating to, or concerned with details
gave us a very particular account of the trip
3a: distinctive among other examples or cases of the same general category : notably unusual
suffered from measles of particular severity
This computer program will be of particular interest to teachers.
b: being one unit or element among others
particular incidents in a story
4a: concerned over or attentive to details : METICULOUS
a very particular gardener
b: nice in taste : FASTIDIOUS
She's very particular about her clothes.
c: hard to please : EXACTING
never loses patience even with the most particular customers
5a: denoting an individual member or subclass in logic
b: affirming or denying a predicate to a part of the subject —used of a proposition in logic
"some men are wise" is a particular affirmative
6obsolete : PARTIAL

[cephasjames]

nm

[The Game]

#TeamTony i have already blocked 37 Sox fans on twitter over this. I just find it odd that so many knowledgeable baseball fans either didn't know or dont care about the 3-0 rule.

I posted a poll on twitter of should the Twins bean Yerm and out of the 43 votes it was overwhelmingly no.
From what TA has posted, it's over with for now at least. It's the 2nd time Yerm has violated team rules.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Two things can be correct at the same time. I do think, because he is old and his managing style, which has been successful in the past, is anchored in that successful past, that he does want to try and demonstrate that his older style and beliefs can work even with "new school" players. And I also think that he wants to win games. It is 100% possible, and logical, for him to want to do both things. Will he succeed? Time will tell. Thus far his team is one of the best in baseball with the highest run differential in the league and in first place in its division. That may not stick. We'll see as the season plays out.

Being a drill sergeant for a young team CAN be effective, short term. Billy Martin had some success, as did Whitey Herzog.

Having high standards, and holding players accountable is a good thing, provided that you can keep their respect while you do it.

Problem is that it wears thin..and players eventually revolt and lay down. The White Sox felt that they needed an "old school" approach, and to this point, you can't argue with success.

I watched LaRussa for years (I live near St. Louis), and he SUCKS as a day to day, tactical manager. Having success is more than being a good game day manager.

[Michael Hopcroft]

I still can't get over the backward thinking that put LaRussa in this situation (managing the Sox) at all. He clearly has no clue about the psychology of the generation he is working with. He might not even enjoy working with them, and his "wisdom" is questionable or outdated, and will hold back the Sox in the long run.

Larussa's players now know that he has no interest in helping them flourish and grow. It's all about him. They still want to win, and have been getting tantalizingly close, but it's clear Larussa's thinking is not going to get them there.

Once the Sox get through this season, and they don't make the playoffs, or make the playoffs and exit immediately, I expect LaRussa to retire again. I still don't understand why the Sox hired him.

[Westheim]

Maybe the thought process was "we're getting dangerously close to be relevant, how can we derail our product in the most efficient manner without trading Jose Abreu for a sack of dead mice"?

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

If LaRussa cared primarily about wins and losses he'd be in the severe minority of major league managers, who mostly care about a. not getting fired, and b. being able to find the next job if/when they do. That might sound like wins and losses but it's really not. You can be an absolute disaster as a manager and still find work as a bench coach or base coach or roving minor league coach or something if you "play the game by the rules".

but he did care about A. He was with the

Sox for 8 yrs orig, OAK for 10 and STL for 16.

as far as B. he signed with OAK the same year he was fired by the SOX and signed with STL they next year after leaving OAK. he was never a coach after '79.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Maybe the thought process was "we're getting dangerously close to be relevant, how can we derail our product in the most efficient manner without trading Jose Abreu for a sack of dead mice"?

But it hasn't been derailed. Still in 1st place.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Michael Hopcroft

I still can't get over the backward thinking that put LaRussa in this situation (managing the Sox) at all. He clearly has no clue about the psychology of the generation he is working with. He might not even enjoy working with them, and his "wisdom" is questionable or outdated, and will hold back the Sox in the long run.

Larussa's players now know that he has no interest in helping them flourish and grow. It's all about him. They still want to win, and have been getting tantalizingly close, but it's clear Larussa's thinking is not going to get them there.

Once the Sox get through this season, and they don't make the playoffs, or make the playoffs and exit immediately, I expect LaRussa to retire again. I still don't understand why the Sox hired him.

Jerry hired him to right the wrong of him being fired by Hawk in 1986 and because he wanted a proven winner to manage this team. To teach discipline, something they lacked under Ricky.