The Fan:
The Morale of the Story

Benjamin Gregory Ramm

"Baseball seems like a linear game with all those lines in the box scores and all, but the fact is it's a spacious non-time kind of thing." - Annie, "Bull Durham"

Last week, Derek Zumsteg argued that team "chemistry" is worthless because it cannot predict. He alludes to the bad blood between Bobby Bonilla and Gary Sheffield to support his indictment of the self-contradiction inherent in the media's use of the term. This is a great example of soft-thinking and poor reporting by the press, but to equate "chemistry" with astrology runs counter to my experience at work where I notice that I focus more clearly and perform at a higher level when I work with people whom I like and respect. I think that most people share my experience, which tells them that what is improperly labelled "chemistry" is in fact morale. More importantly, morale can help explain the tough choices that managers and executives make when the numbers are close.

Derek is right. The track record of individual players is the easiest way to predict a team's success. The best way to build a winner is to collect stars with great statistics because great players tend to win games. I predict that the Braves will win between 93 and 103 games.

To my prediction you might ask: "which is it, 93 or 103?" And I would answer that "it depends." "On what?" "Random events and whether or not players have more good days than more bad days."

Although managers or general managers cannot plan for random events like bad bounces, freak injuries, or an umpire's oscillating strike zone, they can help any collection of players have more good days than bad days. Any factor that builds a player's confidence or improves his focus on the game bolsters team morale.

Instruction, coaching, and mentoring are all intuitive ways that managers or other players can help a player to maximize his natural ability, but they are not the only ways. Morale and respect can also improve a player's work-habits, hustle, or concentration -- all of which effect, if not determine, a player's performance.

How might these forces operate? If I do not like my teammates, off-field disagreements may erode my ability to concentrate. Of course, there have been many winning teams whose players disliked each other. Conversely, I am sure that some losing teams get along very well. Morale and friendliness, then, seem neither necessary nor sufficient for a team to succeed. That does not mean that morale is irrelevant, since good morale can often help lessen the tiring effects of a long road trip.

More important than congeniality or morale is respect. When I see colleagues working hard, I tend to work harder - I do not want to look bad. Conversely, when I work with people who display little effort, my own level of exertion drops - if they don't care, why should I? I cannot believe that I am alone in these feelings. Bobby Bonilla and Gary Sheffield may not like each other, but they cannot deny each other's ability. Each works harder because he doesn't want to look bad in front of the other - whether or not they like each other has little to do with this dynamic. Simply because reporters analyze the key variables of morale incorrectly does not mean that it does not exist.

I would like to think that my job performance would not suffer if I had to work with lazy, surly people but insulating my own performance from my feelings about my co-workers takes a lot of mental discipline and energy - discipline and energy that the "million-dollar arm, five-cent head" does not have. When a player improves a team's morale, other players do better than they usually do in ways that box scores suggest are mere flukes.

This is not to say that I would ignore lazy, surly, superstar talent. That kind of talent is so rare that most teams will improve no matter how many morale problems that player might present. Role players provide the better test case. If a back-up catcher plays in 40 games every year, how should a manager or general manager make the trade-off between .270 hitter who does nothing for the clubhouse atmosphere and a .245 hitter who handles pitchers well and makes road trips enjoyable?

The answer is: I don't know.

I do not have the knowledge of the people involved to make that decision. Moreover, I cannot test my theories about morale. And if I cannot test theories on morale, then Derek argues, they deserve no more attention than the latest plot twist of "For Better or For Worse". That is the wrong test. Simply because a member of the media or even the most rabid fan remains ignorant of a clubhouse's nuances, that does not mean that a good manager cannot test my theories about team morale. My role as a supervisor where I work forces me to make these sorts of decisions constantly. I only wish that I could look at things as quantitative and supposedly objective as ERA or on-base percentage instead of relying on my intuition to make decisions. Borderline tradeoffs will never be as easy to make as deciding between a 1.000 OPS and a .750 OPS, but what seems to differentiate a good manager from an observant couch potato is the ability to make these decisions on the basis of something other than raw numbers.

The confusion comes when the media offers after the fact explanations, and ignore the obvious and simple explanations that raw numbers do make available to observant couch potatoes. For these sins, I will not defend commentators from Derek's ire. But in support of morale and the inexplicable, I will say: if you give me workers who hustle and workers who encourage their colleagues, then you will see performance above what you expect from their previously demonstrated ability.

Benjamin Gregory Ramm is considered a clubhouse leader in his workplace, and is full of scrap and hustle. Make him your reserve infielder at bgr@strikethree.com.