Joe Torre: The Right Decision to make the Decisions?

Psychology has been a part of the athletic landscape since it’s conception, and long before we ever affiliated the two. It has become much more apparent now that the dollar values associated with the players have become inflated along with the egos. Keeping the egos in check is always part of what makes a team successful. No one would argue that the biggest egos in the game only cause distractions for the teams that roster the high maintenance talent. This is where the team’s manager makes his money. Along with the winning of course, keeping the locker room a tame environment is most important job of the manager. The best manager in the league at dealing with the large egos just became part of the Dodgers organization. Joe Torre (seen to the left), former Yankees manger, is known for the way he controls the clubhouse without causing waves and winning along the way. However, I believe that Torre’s talents are wasted in a team that should be cultivating the young, un-blemished, egos of the Dodger organization and become the focus of attention himself. It only seems that the Dodgers are bringing in Torre for the name and the appeal, which the Dodgers need neither of right now. Two blogs that I found this week while searching the blogoshpere assess the hiring of Joe Torre and the impact it will have on the Dodgers organization. The first is titled “Joe Torre + Dodgers = Problem?" and the second is through the Sons of Steve Garvey site and it titled “The Torre Aftermath: Notes from the “LA Times”. The later, interestingly enough is written by and commented on by former Dodger greats Eric Karros, Steve Sax, Orel Hersisher, and Tommy Lasorda. My comments on the thoughts that have been provided by the two blogs can be found at the original blogs and below.

Comment:

Joe Torre’s hiring by the dodgers does seem to be more media hype than anything. He is the quinisential media manager of our time, but you are right in saying that he is only adding to the already hungry Los Angeles media. Some might say as you have that, “This was an already ego-envious sort of climate that sustained itself during Little’s tenure and it was basically the reason for the team’s ultimate tailspin”, however, this is a problem that should be resolved with or without Torre. Most of the ego -laden athletes on the Dodgers are veteran players (look no further than Jeff Kent). With the young talent that the Dodgers have in Kemp, Loney (seen to the right), Martin, Ethier, and others, the high priced and higher aged veterans need to be parted with for the overall benefit of the team. If this takes place, as it should, Torre becomes the only high profile name on the roster, and in effect, the problem that he has worked so hard to thwart throughout his managerial carrer. However, this situation can go two ways. Either the hire backfires as you and I have pointed at there, or Torre takes the media attention away from the team, not allowing the egos to flourish, handles the clubhouse as we know he can, and works his magic once again. In either case it will be interesting to see how the large shadow of Joe Torre looms above the Dodger organization.

Comment:

Joe Torre’s hiring, as you have put it, “seems a little extravagant for a team that wasn’t suppose to be shopping in this neighborhood”, and this is what worries me. The Dodger organization has brought in a great coach, do not get me wrong, but I am not sure he is the right fit. He was a perfect fit in New York were the egos seemed to be the only thing larger than the payroll at times, and he won in spite of it. However, the coach that was paid so much to keep things under the radar is going to become the biggest blip in the organization. As was said, he is not expected to replace or become a name added to the list of the most revered Dodger players and managers ever, but he will be compared. Writers at papers like the L.A. Times will have a field day with each Torre win or loss, especially if they come in bunches. The Dodgers do not need a manager to temper player outbursts (most of the time) or egos, but they do need to cultivate the young talent, which will lead to the wins. I believe Torre will point the team in the right direction and do his part, but his hiring may have been for a different reason, and a hiring for anything other than winning is for the wrong reason.

Tricks of the Media: No Treat for the Players

An average athlete’s job goes beyond the playing field. These are the leaders of our favorite teams and role models to our children. An athlete's secondary job however seems to be the most tedious. Every week after the big game or series the players are asked to present themselves in front of the media and answer any questions the media may pose. These are questions that the players are never prepared to answer, yet they are expected to answer each question without flaw. Facing locker room reporters is a task that is becoming more and more difficult because the media representatives are choosing their questions wisely in order to get their big story. Every deliberately probing question is cleverly worded to create a trap. Now our favorite players not only have to watch what they say to preserve their own reputation, but also the reputations of their teammates, coaches, owner, and fans. This obvious line of questioning exhibited by each reporter takes away from the most important aspect of any athletic event (the game itself), and turns a post-game interview into a monetary pursuit.

An article by Ray Ratto entitled, “Media Minds: Read the following 755 words – then quit it!” refers to the dreaded question asked to Ray Lewis (seen above) of the Baltimore Ravens about his coaches' play calling. This, as Ratto puts it, leaves the player with two options, “be politically correct and sound weak and spineless, or attack the coach as requested and then get ripped for being a mutinous hyena.” In either case it is a losing situation. And we wonder why athletes hate the media.

As a result of this questioning tactic some sports figures, such as former NFL coach Bill Parcells and NCAA basketball coach Bobby Knight (seen to the right), have decided that they will no longer answer any questions that they think put them in such a trap by yelling for the next question, simple saying "That's a terrible question," or even insulting the reporter . By handling potentially harmful questions in this way, the person interviewed preserves the dignity of the team and rejects the only question the journalist or reporter is allowed to ask. With Coach Parcells and Knight reporters are now tentative about asking a trapping question knowing that it may be dismissed and they will go home without their story. Unfortunately, these two figures are scrutinized by the fans for their actions. I, on the other hand, believe that we should excuse them for taking this course of action. As John Feinstein points out in his article about coach Knight entitled, "Good Knight, Bad Knight," "Knight plays by the rules" when it comes to the NCAA and that includes dealing with the media. This response does not warrant criticism and should be accepted as a form of dealing with the media in order to protect those being interviewed if they so choose.

With these types of questions making their way into locker rooms and post-game interviews, it is important to ask what this does to the sport they are covering? Being a purist when it comes to the world of sports, I am against this form of “investigative journalism." All reporters seem to be doing is soiling the names of men to sell their products by partaking in the media trap phenomena . This by no means shows any respect for the athletes, but characterizes the news, radio, and television businesses. As a result, these athletes are given bad labels that in turn can hurt their careers. With the actions of competitors on and off the field now being spotlighted in all sports as a barometer of their character, and leading to suspensions and fines in the case of detrimental character, those who are caught in these traps and answer the question receive negative stigma and a possible "week off". Too much of this could not only make the player who was loved by the fans last week into a disgrace to the team name, but also diminish his spot as a role model for America's youth.

I am by no means saying that the players in any of the three most popular American sports (baseball, basketball, and football) should not be made to address the media for a post game interview. Actually, I believe players in each sport should be questioned about a controversial play or action that has caused a rift in character. Current Titans football player Pacman Jones (seen to the left) is an exceptional example of someone who has dug their own media grave and is fair game in my eyes. However, the line of questioning involved in the specific situations I have highlighted here does not cause the character flaw. It is the distinct word trap posed by the reporter that is the problem. I am not advocating the removal of all media figures from the locker rooms but simply asking them not to become a distraction from the game. Report on the play calling, the already troubled athlete, or the fourth quarter comeback, but leave the athletes to play the games on the field and entertain the public; do not make them play games in the media room. This is seemingly another path to unintentionally deface the sports we love.

The Angels Front Office: Do Not Rejoice Yet

Stories from the major league's front offices have been dominated by Joe Torre's decision to decline the offer proposed by the New York Yankees, a decision that will most likely result in Torre not returning to the league in pinstripes. However, a more important change recently took place in the Los Angeles Angles of Anaheim front office. Behind Torre’s shadow, Bill Stoneman (pictured to the left), the now former General Manager (GM) of the Angels, stepped down and gave way to Tony Reagins, who started as an intern in 1992 and has now worked his way up to the GM position with Stoneman becoming a Senior Advisor to the Angels' owner, Arte Moreno. The Angels have been contenders in the American League since their national championship in 2002 but have had trouble recently getting over the hump. This has not been due to a lack of pitching (which may be the best in the league), or an emptied farm system (the Angels are littered with young talent), but rather to a lack of offense, particularly a “big bat” if the average fan is asked. These same fans have asked for change come the trade deadline each season and maybe Reagins will bring it with him this year. However, I would bet on more of the same when it comes to the Angels' mentality at the trade deadline , which just happens to be the right decision for the franchise.

When the news first broke about Stoneman stepping down, the overall consensus showed that the fans were overjoyed. This is illustrated best by the title of an article by Larry Brown called “Angel Fans Everywhere, Raise a Pint." He shares the same view as many Angel fans do about Stoneman; he is a coward, he never makes the right move, and he invests too much in the undeveloped young talent. Ironically an in depth look at Stoneman’s actions prove that these are the very things that have made the Angels a successful organization. To bring hard evidence to the case, just look at Stoneman’s resume. We can easily start at the top with the only World Series appearance and victory (the celebration is pictured here) in the franchise’s history coming with Stoneman at the helm. He was the one that kept highly touted minor leaguers John Lackey and Francisco Rodriguez in the organization at the time when many teams were asking for their services. Those two players also played a key role in the World Series and have turned into all stars. Stoneman also handled the signing of superstar Vladimir Guerrero. The signing and extension both for Guerrero, even in the eyes of Larry Brown, “was easily one of the best free agent steals in the past decade” especially because Guerrero won the American League MVP award that year. There are also many other examples, such as the re-signing of Kelvim Escobar when little was known about him, and the release of fan favorite David Eckstien, which lead to the free agent signing of the significantly better Orlando Cabrera. As far as the young players that Stoneman was stingy with come the trade deadline are concerned, even Brown says, "Sometimes the moves you don’t make are the ones that are better for the club because of what was not lost."

This is the man many Angles fans are happy has stepped down from a position in which he built a winning franchise. Maybe now the Angel fans will get their wish and give up the next Lackey and Rodriguez for that big bat. As an Angels fan, I hope not. Stoneman knew when the right time was to make the big trade and spend the money without damaging the nucleus of a successful team. What many of the fans are overlooking is that Reagins has been trained and will be advised by Stoneman still. If they think that Reagins will bring about a front office 180 when the trade deadline comes, they are sadly mistaken. Their false hope is not a bad thing though. They will be happy that the young talent is there when everything is said and done. Years of contention and success are ahead without a gamble for a one-year splurge.

The Angles were poised to win a championship this year if you asked most professional analysts come playoff time, but slumped in the ALDS. This, however, was with a core of young, undeveloped talent that is only going to get better and a pitching staff that will be solid for years to come. Bill Stoneman did fine, in fact, he did exceptionally well with what he was given to make the team a contender. To be judgmental of his actions is foolish. Most fans would have been happy with a GM who provided a team that could begin each season with a legitimate chance to win it all. Now is the time when we should be thanking Stoneman for what he has accomplished, not “raising our glasses” to his departure.

The NBA: It is Only a Business Afterall

Isiah Thomas, former NBA great, and now front office guru extraordinaire, has been making news lately in a sexual harassment case involving New York Knicks employee Anucha Browne Sanders. Although word of the case spread long ago, the verdict, a cool $11.6 million in favor of Miss Sanders, was recently handed down. However, the one thing that has not made headlines, as pointed out by J.A. Adande in his article, "Stern's silence speaks volumes about NBA's sense of fairness", is the leagues reaction to the case, mostly because they have not made one. The question though is not when the league is going to respond, but why they have not responded yet.

David Stern, the NBA commissioner, has gone through a lot of trouble throughout the past few years to make the NBA attractive in order to "sell its product to Corporate America" as Adande so eloquently put it. As recently as a season ago, a dress code was put into place for the players as they entered and left the arenas. No longer can they wear baggy clothes and be dripping with jewelry, but must be wearing suits just in case they get those two seconds of airtime on the pre-game show for TBS. This was done for the money, for the sponsorship the NBA receives. The more professional and controlled it looks, the easier it is for the big spenders to invest. This is why, as strange as it might seem now, the NBA has not made a real move.

If you are asking why it is strange that there has been no response the answer is easy. Punishing Isiah Thomas and James Dolan, the Knick's owner, would show that there is control of the league by Stern and that instances like these do not fly in the current regime. Who better to make an example of then a former NBA all star and the owner of the largest market team in the NBA? But, this is the snag. They would punish them to make to the league look controlled so the NBA can once again "sell the product" to the investors, but, at the same time, tarnish the image of the largest market team in the NBA costing them fans, in what we know is the most scrutinizing fan base in the U.S. (just look at A-Rod), and ultimately money. The same money they would hope to receive from the investors by punishing these men. It seems to be the perfect catch-22.

A similar incident happened to Jerry Buss, the Lakers owner. He was arrested on DUI charges with a blood alcohol content of .13 and Stern made no move. Could this be for the same reason? Los Angeles is arguably the second largest market in sports and brings in a lot of revenue as well. Plus, owners like Buss and Dolan know how to make the money. How many other owners made as much money as these two did for the league without their respective teams making the playoffs? Many would venture to say there were no others.

Sterns predicament is an interesting one, but the NBA is still a business. They need to make money for the league to run. Stern and his associates must tread lightly, and it seems that they are. Recently, there has been talk of Dolan only having limited say or control in the organization. Sounds like a facade for the fans and investors. However, for now, I am just going to sit back and watch it all unfold. The world will soon see what the NBA is concerned about the most.

Instant Replay: The Answer to Tradition

In the current world of sports the mediators of the game do not make perfect calls, may have some bias, and could even be influenced by the Vegas spread (thank you Tim Donaghy). But these mediators, more commonly known as umpires and officials, will never be free of human error. It has always been part of every game since the beginning of every games existence. There has always been that give and take, and it has always been accepted that you will win a few and you will lose a few when it comes to human judgment. However, a few years ago the NFL and the NBA elected to use instant replay in order to rid the game of any human error in the most important of situations. The response to this at the time was mixed. Now that it is, without a doubt part of the game, most people do not give it a second thought anymore. An article by William Weinbaum entitled, "Froemming draws Pappas' ire, 35 years later" challenges this lack of concern once again, and teases to mind to find the boundaries between acceptable human error and the achievements of the game.

The article recounts a game of baseball between the Chicago Cubs and the San Diego Padres on September 2, 1972. Pitcher Milt Pappas was throwing a perfect game in the ninth inning with two out. Larry Stahl was at the plate and Bruce Froemming, seen to the right, was calling balls and strikes. With Pappas "one strike away from immortality" he threw a slider on the outside corner that he, his catcher, and many others watching thought was good enough to end the game. However, Fromming disagreed, and needless to say, he blew the perfect game with a walk on the next pitch.

Did this play need instant replay? Pappas may have deserved to achieve a feat that very few pitchers even get the chance to accomplish. If you ask me, the answer is no. Instant replay has no place in the game when it comes to personal accomplishment. This is not because the right call should not be made, but because human judgment has been the barometer of success in the game for all players looking to do something special. Sandy Koufax, one of the best pitchers of the century, threw four no hitters (Koufax is pictured here with one ball for each) and a perfect game without needing it. How many more could he have thrown if he had the bonus of instant replay on a check swing or a close strike in any of his one hitters? Football, which uses instant replay now, has the same questions. How many big catches and touchdowns in playoff situations should have been called the other way? There must be some quarterback or receiver out there that thinks instant replay could have gotten them a win if that one play was reversed. The fact of the matter is that judgment calls are part of the game. It is not fair to those who played without it to watch players benefit from it now. If instant replay results in the reverse of a call that results in a record should there be an asterisk next to it? An article by Steve Aschburner, called "Instant Success" even jests in regard to the many times officials go to the replay booth by saying, "Review every call in the last two minutes of every game in which the score is within one possession of the point spread or the over/under line, as determined by Las Vegas sports books at tipoff."

Instant replay does have many benefits. The game has become more accurate as a result, and the fans seem happier that the games they watch are not determined by a bad call, but something must be said about the tradition of the game. The game was invented and rules put into place taking into consideration human error. Go ahead and use instant replay when absolutely necessary, but lets not check down to technology after every controversial play. That is the easiest way to destroy the beauty and fluidity of the game loved by those who came before us.

The Game of Football: What is best to Preserve Integrity

While searching the blogosphere this week, I came across two related blog entries in The Daily Angllhungnu2. The author has published various books in the world of Psychology and frequently publishes blogs on topics that are related to the realm of athletics. Recently, he has been focused on prominent athletic figures that have sullied their reputations, and the reputation of the NFL. This is a topic that has been at the forefront of the field lately and has garnered much attention through publication, radio, and television. One of his entries, "Busting His Bust...The Removal of O.J. from Canton" gives his view on the recent allegations surrounding former professional running back, and USC star, O.J. Simpson (pictured here). The second entry, "Should Belichick be Asked to Resign" alludes to the videotaping scandal associated with the New England Patriots, and what the best course of action would be for the game of football. I have left comments on these blog entries addressing both with my own viewpoints and why the face of the game is more important than any one face that makes up that game.

The actions taken by Bill Belichich, on behalf of the New England Patriots, is by no means commendable. What he has done deserves the penalty that has been placed by Commissioner Goodell. I actually think that a suspension from the league for the coach should have been included as well. However, I do not think that Belichick should resign from his current position. What he has partaken in is in fact cheating, and does reflect on the league negatively in the media, but is not means for self-expulsion. That, we can leave to those who have really scared the game, such as Pacman Jones. Belichick's actions should not give the NFL or any other players in the game a bad name but himself ( I believe these actions were only his idea), and the only way I think he should be made to resign, is if he did give others a bad name through his actions or helped to label the NFL, and all of its players and coaches, as a "cheaters league" much as Pacman Jones gave some evidence, quite unfortunately, for the stereotype that the NFL is a "criminals league". Goodell (to the left) has done a great job trying to protect the image of the NFL, and in doing so, has kept Belichick from becoming the type of sports figure that would warrant such a severe penalty such as being made to resign. The bottom line is what is the best for the "sake of the game". The game is for the fans. Without them there is no game, and no money to support it. It is best for the game to keep Belichick in, not because he necessarily deserves it, but because if he is made to resign you "cast a long and hideous shadow" over the game of football as well. In this age of steroids, its one of the last remaining popular sports that we don't have looming suspicions about. Baseball achievements and records have the shadow due to steroids, relieving Belichick from his duties will cast the shadow over football for cheating. Our national pastime has been tarnished, lets not do the same to the game of football, and do what is right for the game.


The recent allegations against O.J. Simpson are almost beyond belief. One would think he would have learned by now. Its strange to think that this one time childhood hero, and pro-bowler has become a serial criminal, but this does not take away the fact that he was a hero for many children and one of the best on the field. I have always been a supporter of what was achieved as a player matters most when it comes to Hall of Fame induction, but I agree we must draw the line somewhere.

I had an opportunity to meet Pete Rose this summer and he signed a baseball for me, pictured to the right, that says the words, "I'm sorry I bet on baseball". Some might say it is just a money ploy to inscribe something like this on a ball, but in talking with him, anyone could tell that if he could take one thing back in his life, the gambling would be it. He is the all-time hit leader, and one of the best baseball players ever. What he did was wrong, but he has apologized and does regret what he has done. Pete Rose, in my estimation belongs in the Hall at this point.

O.J., on the other hand, will never apologize for any of his actions, and we now see that he has no qualms about compounding his mistakes. Although I am not sold on destroying the bust and removing O.J. from the hall yet, I do think there has to be some action taken. Once again, we see that something has to be done to protect the image of the league and its fans. There is something to be learned from Pete Rose's regret, but nothing from O.J.'s continual court visits. This is the perfect opportunity to separate those who have become great people from those who were just good athletes, and we can all agree, O.J. was only, and will always only be the later.

Leadership: What Really Leads to Success

The sports world has seen many of its leaders scrutinized as of late. On September 13th , we saw one of the most respected coaches in the NFL, Bill Belichick, of the New England Patriots, as seen on the left, disciplined for filming the defensive coordinators of the opposing team in order to steal signs that would tip of the defensive formations being used. Earlier this summer, Michael Vick, the undisputed leader of the Atlanta Falcons in his time there has admitted to dog fighting charges. This does not even take into account the barrage of steroid allegations associated with some of the biggest names in Major League Baseball. This string of events that has taken place with childhood heroes and leaders of their respective teams begs us to find the true qualities of a leader.These qualities, although thought to be measurable through testing, go beyond that. A true leader holds that special quality, often called the "x-factor", that makes them, and those around them winners on and of the field.

A recent study by the University of Exeter, University of St Andrews, and Australian National University answered that question. They found that the best leaders are the ones who shape themselves to fit the group, instead of fitting the group to them, despite any action that is taken off the field. Although these finding do have merit, there are instances that refute this finding, and they come in the way of some of our generation's most successful leaders.
An article entitled "Leadership in Sports", points at Jim Fassel (to the right), a long time NFL head coach, as a poster-child for this leadership technique, but when we look at the numbers Fassel posted as a leader of his teams, we see that he was average compared to the many NFL coaches throughout the leagues existence.

In yet another related article titled, "Leadership Characteristics", by Karlene Sugarman, she states, "The quality and effectiveness of a great leader will often show itself by way of the team's effort as a whole." By this rational, Fassel, with his perfect leadership technique, as provided by the study of the University of Exeter, University of St Andrews, and Australian National University, should get more out of his players than any other coach in the league, which in turn should lead to victories on the field, the barometer of success on any athletic playing field.

Another long time NFL head coach, Bill Parcells, as seen here, implements a vast contrast in Fassel's style of coaching. Parcells' approach has always been to fit his players into his game plan as if they were pawns in a chess-match. By the studies results, he should be unsuccessful as the team's leader, but Parcells is one of the most successful, and respected coaches of our time. He has amassed a 154-116 record in his time with the NFL and has a winning playoff record. Fassel, on the other hand, has a record that barely surpasses the .500 mark and has a losing playoff record.

Phil Jackson, of the Los Angeles Lakers, is another great example of a contradiction to these recent findings. Jackson was inducted to the basketball Hall of Fame this month and, in 1997, was recognized as one of the NBA's ten greatest coaches. In his sixteen years of coaching in the NBA, he has obtained a record of 919-393, and a playoff record of 179-77, including nine NBA titles tying him for the most all time. Jackson, like Parcells, has always fit his players into his scheme and has even been known to bench, and surpass the opportunity to obtain star athletes if they don't conform to his style. According to the study, he should also be unsuccessful as a leader in the athletic realm, however, this is once again not the case.

Leaders in the athletic realm are not limited to coaches though. Many athletes look to other players for leadership. One on the field leader was Priest Holmes. Holmes, pictured on the field, now looking to come back from a catastrophic injury, was the offensive leader for the Kansas City Chiefs from 2002 until 2005, the year of his injury. From 2002-2003, no running back in the NFL had more touchdowns or rushing yards than Holmes. The Kansas City offense, anchored by Holmes, was also considered one of the best of the time, and was a playoff contender in Holmes most productive years. Thanks to Elizabeth Merrill, new light has been shed on the character of Priest Holmes, giving us a better understanding of the man trying to reestablish himself as a prolific player after his injury. She reveals that Priest Holmes, the former on the field leader, kept to himself, did not talk to teammates, practiced on his own, and even cut ties with his own family during training camp so he would not be distracted. Most of this he did throughout the season, but still showed up quite noticeably as the teams leader every Sunday. As the best player in the NFL at the time, Holmes was forced into the leader role and played it well, but provides a look at the opposite side of the spectrum when it comes to the composition of a great leader, as described by the coinciding studies results.
This study, as said earlier, is not without merit, and could be true in most situations, but there is much to be said about the other side of the coin. Some of the best leaders of our day were not "team players", but this does not make them unsuccessful as a leader. There is some "x-factor" at play, and that is what needs to be brought into focus. Every good leader has that unique quality, and its not this easy to generalize.