About the whole morale thing

italyprof · 03-14-2017, 04:55 PM

Many here have had the experience: a good team on paper, but midway through the season it is underperforming and you start to get messages from players about how bad the clubhouse atmosphere is.

It is always hard to figure out what the problem is, who is at the center of the trouble, or why this is happening. You end up third or fourth.

It just happened to me in a historical league - my NY Yankees had done well in 1968, coming in a strong second place behind a Boston team that could not seem to lose a game in the last month.

We had Johnny Edwards catching, with a young Thurman Munson backing him up, Cater at first, Beckert at 2B, Kessinger at SS and a not quite ready Graig Nettles at third. An outfield of Brock, Willie Davis and Bobby Murcer. A good rotation of Mickey Lolich, Mel Stottlemyre, Jim Nash and Gary Nolan. Not a great bullpen but we have Lindy McDaniels.

No bench though: when injuries hit we tanked. So I traded some good prospects - we had Ted Simmons, for example but with Munson to take over at C he could be great trade bait. Okay, so I strengthen the bench getting Dick Schofield, Dick Green, Ken Berry and I upgraded at 1B with Deron Johnson, which gave us Danny Cater as a backup at first, third and the outfield and a good pinch hitter.

We also had drafted Andy Messersmith who now slid into the fifth rotation position. Hard team to beat I thought for 1969.

We never got out of the starting gate. Slow start, and the griping started. But this time I was able to identify it and there might be one clue to at least one of the factors leading to clubhouse dissension.

Cater, Schofield, Berry and Green all complained, as well as Johnny Edwards who could not stand the griping.

So you have all players who were pretty decent, and all starters and regulars, but not top flight, in fact B-quality. But all think they belong as starters and not bench players.

That may be a factor in this phenomenon: that out of control griping may come from having regulars who should not be on the bench, but who may not be good enough to start for your team if you have better.

So here is my bet: I traded all of the above, including Edwards, and got players like Ted Kubiack, Bill Sudakis, a young Cesar Geronimo who won't be ready to start for a couple of years yet, and strengthened our not great bullpen with Mike Marshall.

So hopefully, players who don't have the same expectation to play every day but will get some playing time at various positions will work better for clubhouse chemistry than having two real starters at each position which backfired.

I don't claim this is the only or even main cause of clubhouse conflict, but it might be a clue as to how to avoid one cause of it. Any thoughts or similar experiences out there?

fuzzy_patters · 03-15-2017, 01:44 PM

Could you please post a follow-up when your season is over and let us know if your team performed better and complained less after the trades? You might be onto something.

NoOne · 03-15-2017, 06:08 PM

we'll never know for sure because of all the trades... i'm not familiar with the names-to-ability, either. (a few well-known ones for someone outside that region).

so, those trades may be a good thing, as long as what you traded away wasn't that useful to you.

otherwise, if you have faith it's a good team that will win over the next few years, you just chalk it up to a bad year.... injuries can make this occur easily. morale will fix itself... who cares if morales is bad and you have a losing season? as long as you don't lose for a long time, you can have those B-type players on your bench... they will be uspet about role, but overall happy(or at least normal).

morale shouldn't be a concern about much -- unless you think you are about to have some longer stretch with little hope of making the playoffs. In those situations, Maybe managing morale will be useful by not dropping 'too far' down the rabit hole that it can't be fixed by 1 successful season once you have rebuilt.

make trades because they make your team better... worry about the small stuff only when you have crappy teams. (a bad season due to reasons other than talent are not crappy teams.. that's just bad luck and it happens).

hefalumps · 05-12-2017, 02:11 PM

I'm in a very similar boat with my 1973 Orioles. Severely underperforming and morale is in the toilet. We had been very good in the 60s and won the World Series in 70 but the last couple of years haven't been so good.

I had a similar problem in 1972 and I realized it might be the same thing - I had too many people who thought they should be in the starting lineup even though they weren't playing well enough. So I either traded or let most of those guys go in free agency, and I was very careful to only sign bench players who were OK with being bench players this time.

What happened? Most of them change their tune a month into the season and now think they should be in the starting lineup. One or two of them sent me personal messages complaining and wanting to be traded, and then the once or twice a week "clubhouse bickering" e-mails started once we went on a skid.

The only negative personalities I have left on the team are Tommy John, who has a "me first" attitude, but he's my ace so I ain't trading him unless we fall far enough out.

I do like the idea of morale, because I think clubhouse chemistry definitely has an effect on performance in real life, and I hear it's a lot easier to deal with in 18 (I'll import this league once I feel it's stable). But I wish I could tell how much of our poor performance is morale and how much is bad luck.

Glad to know I'm not alone.

Orcin · 05-12-2017, 02:33 PM

I don't like using morale in historical leagues, because the player attributes do not match real life. Often, players that were troublemakers in real life are assigned good personalities and players that were leaders in real life are made to be bad apples in the game.

If the player personalities were accurate, I would use it because it is a good feature and fun to manage. It is much improved in 18 with the team chemistry screen and easy access to the one-word class descriptions.

Jerry Helper · 05-15-2017, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

I don't like using morale in historical leagues, because the player attributes do not match real life. Often, players that were troublemakers in real life are assigned good personalities and players that were leaders in real life are made to be bad apples in the game.
.

This. The same can also be said for historical managers, and that's another thing that can effect morale. I had a sim once where the players hated Connie Mack and sent me a letter of thanks when I fired him. Not a ton of evidence to historically back that up

03-14-2017, 04:55 PM	#1
italyprof All Star Reserve Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 991	About the whole morale thing Many here have had the experience: a good team on paper, but midway through the season it is underperforming and you start to get messages from players about how bad the clubhouse atmosphere is. It is always hard to figure out what the problem is, who is at the center of the trouble, or why this is happening. You end up third or fourth. It just happened to me in a historical league - my NY Yankees had done well in 1968, coming in a strong second place behind a Boston team that could not seem to lose a game in the last month. We had Johnny Edwards catching, with a young Thurman Munson backing him up, Cater at first, Beckert at 2B, Kessinger at SS and a not quite ready Graig Nettles at third. An outfield of Brock, Willie Davis and Bobby Murcer. A good rotation of Mickey Lolich, Mel Stottlemyre, Jim Nash and Gary Nolan. Not a great bullpen but we have Lindy McDaniels. No bench though: when injuries hit we tanked. So I traded some good prospects - we had Ted Simmons, for example but with Munson to take over at C he could be great trade bait. Okay, so I strengthen the bench getting Dick Schofield, Dick Green, Ken Berry and I upgraded at 1B with Deron Johnson, which gave us Danny Cater as a backup at first, third and the outfield and a good pinch hitter. We also had drafted Andy Messersmith who now slid into the fifth rotation position. Hard team to beat I thought for 1969. We never got out of the starting gate. Slow start, and the griping started. But this time I was able to identify it and there might be one clue to at least one of the factors leading to clubhouse dissension. Cater, Schofield, Berry and Green all complained, as well as Johnny Edwards who could not stand the griping. So you have all players who were pretty decent, and all starters and regulars, but not top flight, in fact B-quality. But all think they belong as starters and not bench players. That may be a factor in this phenomenon: that out of control griping may come from having regulars who should not be on the bench, but who may not be good enough to start for your team if you have better. So here is my bet: I traded all of the above, including Edwards, and got players like Ted Kubiack, Bill Sudakis, a young Cesar Geronimo who won't be ready to start for a couple of years yet, and strengthened our not great bullpen with Mike Marshall. So hopefully, players who don't have the same expectation to play every day but will get some playing time at various positions will work better for clubhouse chemistry than having two real starters at each position which backfired. I don't claim this is the only or even main cause of clubhouse conflict, but it might be a clue as to how to avoid one cause of it. Any thoughts or similar experiences out there?

03-15-2017, 06:08 PM	#3
NoOne Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,167	we'll never know for sure because of all the trades... i'm not familiar with the names-to-ability, either. (a few well-known ones for someone outside that region). so, those trades may be a good thing, as long as what you traded away wasn't that useful to you. otherwise, if you have faith it's a good team that will win over the next few years, you just chalk it up to a bad year.... injuries can make this occur easily. morale will fix itself... who cares if morales is bad and you have a losing season? as long as you don't lose for a long time, you can have those B-type players on your bench... they will be uspet about role, but overall happy(or at least normal). morale shouldn't be a concern about much -- unless you think you are about to have some longer stretch with little hope of making the playoffs. In those situations, Maybe managing morale will be useful by not dropping 'too far' down the rabit hole that it can't be fixed by 1 successful season once you have rebuilt. make trades because they make your team better... worry about the small stuff only when you have crappy teams. (a bad season due to reasons other than talent are not crappy teams.. that's just bad luck and it happens). Last edited by NoOne; 03-15-2017 at 06:09 PM.

03-15-2017, 01:44 PM	#2
fuzzy_patters All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,804	Could you please post a follow-up when your season is over and let us know if your team performed better and complained less after the trades? You might be onto something.

05-12-2017, 02:11 PM	#4
hefalumps All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,357	I'm in a very similar boat with my 1973 Orioles. Severely underperforming and morale is in the toilet. We had been very good in the 60s and won the World Series in 70 but the last couple of years haven't been so good. I had a similar problem in 1972 and I realized it might be the same thing - I had too many people who thought they should be in the starting lineup even though they weren't playing well enough. So I either traded or let most of those guys go in free agency, and I was very careful to only sign bench players who were OK with being bench players this time. What happened? Most of them change their tune a month into the season and now think they should be in the starting lineup. One or two of them sent me personal messages complaining and wanting to be traded, and then the once or twice a week "clubhouse bickering" e-mails started once we went on a skid. The only negative personalities I have left on the team are Tommy John, who has a "me first" attitude, but he's my ace so I ain't trading him unless we fall far enough out. I do like the idea of morale, because I think clubhouse chemistry definitely has an effect on performance in real life, and I hear it's a lot easier to deal with in 18 (I'll import this league once I feel it's stable). But I wish I could tell how much of our poor performance is morale and how much is bad luck. Glad to know I'm not alone.

05-12-2017, 02:33 PM	#5
Orcin Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Indiana Posts: 9,798	I don't like using morale in historical leagues, because the player attributes do not match real life. Often, players that were troublemakers in real life are assigned good personalities and players that were leaders in real life are made to be bad apples in the game. If the player personalities were accurate, I would use it because it is a good feature and fun to manage. It is much improved in 18 with the team chemistry screen and easy access to the one-word class descriptions.