Establishing a Winning Culture

by ~ September 7th, 2009 at 10:46 pm

The minor league affiliates under the Seattle Mariners flag have had a great season as a whole, with a couple of rookie league championships and playoff berths and only two of nine teams finishing with a sub .500 record.  Through this I’ve come across many Mariners fans talking about the importance of having minor league talent get accustomed to winning as they come up the organizational ladder.  In theory, a minor leaguer who has played for winners on his way up will have more drive at the major league level, while a player that played for losing teams as he ascended might just be playing for a paycheck by the time he reaches the big leagues.

Some general managers and scouting directors are going to care about this while others won’t.  But how much effect does it have on players as they reach the big leagues.  If this really matters, would it be fair to assume that the 2008 Seattle Mariners weren’t immersed in a winning culture in their early days?

“Winners”: All 6 of Richie Sexson’s minor league teams finished .500 or better, winning 3 league championships and 1 additional division title and made the playoffs with the Cleveland Indians in his first season as a starter.  Jose Lopez was on winning teams all but one year of his minor league career and won a league championship and a conference title.  Yuniesky Betancourt only spent one partial season in the minor leagues, but played for two winning teams that year and played for winning teams in Cuba prior.  In minor league seasons where he logged a significant number of games, Raul Ibanez only played for a sub-.500 team twice.  Miguel Batista, Erik Bedard, J.J. Putz, Mark Lowe were on more winning teams than losing ones in the minors.

“Losers”: Jose Vidro played in a Montreal Expos organization that had trouble fielding winners at any level.  Bill Bavasi cared more about challenging his top prospects than fielding winners in the minors, so guys like Wlad Balentien and Jeff Clement played on some real stinkers.  Jarrod Washburn and Carlos Silva played on more sub-.500 teams than good ones with their respective organizations coming up.

In between: Jeremy Reed and Felix Hernandez spent roughly  half their time on sub-.500 teams and half on winning teams.

Those aren’t all the players on the 2008 Mariners, but the main contributors for the most part (basically, this is taking forever and I’m packing it in).  As you can see more guys came up in a winning environment than didn’t.

I’m not sure I buy into the  “establishing a winning culture” thing.  I’m sure there are plenty of guys who care more about padding their numbers and getting paid than about winning, but for the most part I think players know that you play to win the game.  How many times have we heard players dodge talking about their individual accomplishments by talking about the team goal?  If a player is competitive, he’s going to do everything he can to help his team win, no matter how many losing teams he played for in the minor leagues.  Players know that the minor leagues are there to help them develop their skills on their way to the bigs.  Winning will make their time there more enjoyable, but I think most players know that the ultimate goal is to win the big leagues, not in the minors.

Sexson is a rare player that came up 100% immersed in a winning culture.  Most guys are a mixed bag, and any given team will have guys with diverse minor league track records when it comes to the wins and losses.

I’d be very interested in hearing what you all have to say about this issue.

«
»

  • http://www.marinercentral.com Lonnie

    I generally put more emphasis on the mental/emotional aspects of a player than the measurables. It’s something that has gotten me in trouble on more than one occasion, but hey, it’s my measuring stick, right?

    There are two aspects of the game that I hold dear: Leadership and Culture. A team of individuals can’t accomplish the end goal regardless of their level of talent. If this were true the Yankees would have won 20 WC in the last 20 years. A team has to have leaders on the field who are vocal and back up their words with actions. These are what I think of as the mental leaders. It also helps to have a player or two who bring the group of individuals together to form a team, these are the emotional leaders. Currently on the M’s, we have two emotional leaders but no true mental leaders.

    Mental leaders, IMHO are a product of winning. Players who have come up through a winning system and have it ingrained into their personalities that winning is everything. Give them some voice and you have a true mental leader. We have some guys who have the winning culture ingrained at least partially into their personas, but they lack the voice to be true on-field mental leaders.

    For me, it is crucial for an organization to instill winning at all levels. This actually may be a bit detrimental to some players as they will be held back for the good of their team, but in general I believe that a stud will forego a jump in leagues for a chance at a championship.

    Just my $0.02…

    Lonnie

  • MarinerMan6

    Jon,
    I think this “winning culture” stuff is the biggest pile of BS I have ever heard. What player is going to say they like to lose?? Unfortunately, the M’s have 2 DH’s or designated huggers in Jr. and Sweeney that provide very little in baseball value. Team win championships because of talent, not because a “veteran” presence. The M’s have had Vidro, Sexson, Cairo, etc. and still sucked so veterans provide nothing if they aren’t good baseball players.
    Especially in baseball, which is a very individual sport, helping the team is best accomplished by being at your best individually on the field, not by inviting the team over for movie night for camraderies purposes. The problem I have with the winning culture is that you always hear how important guys like Jr. and Sweeney are when the M’s win but if they lose there is no mention of them, why is that?? It is a double standard and if Jr./Sweeney the M’s would not have played so awful in the 2nd month of the season and they would be talking playoffs right now. The reality of the situation is that “winning culture” has about as much impact on game results as the Mariner Moose. It cool to talk about but in reality I chose talented players over designated huggers every time.

  • http://proballnw.com Jon Shields

    MarinerMan6, you address me but it looks like you’re responding to Lonnie’s comments about team leaders. My post had nothing to do with the idea of “team chemistry,” which seems to be what you’re ranting about.

  • MarinerMan6

    Fair enough, just my general thoughts on the subject. I was not trying to imply that you disagreed with me, and on the contrary it is obvious you are skeptical establishing a winning culture. I personally believe “establishing a winning culture” and “team chemistry” are inextricably tied together as two things that can in no way be quantified or really discussed with reason. Trying to establish the influence of these things on baseball games is impossible. This argument is based on faith alone, much like many people believe in God. In the end there is no way to prove or disprove the impact of a “winning culture” on a baseball team and the only thing were are left with is a hand waving argument (or rant if you would like to call it) as I discussed in the earlier post.

  • http://proballnw.com Jon Shields

    Yup, you nailed it. The team chemistry debates of last year went nowhere because there is indeed no way to quantify it. The sides are made up of people who feel one way or the other, and have gut feelings to support their claims. There is no right or wrong.

    I’m somewhere in the middle. If I’m the GM I’m either assembling my team based on talent, then making some minor moves to bring in some “good” teammates, or looking for players that have a reputation for boosting clubhouse morale but still can play (like Jim Thome). I would never sacrifice a spot in my lineup for chemistry.

  • http://www.marinercentral.com Lonnie

    I think that the importance of team chemistry is proven when it is absent. Mixing the right chemicals together to create team chemistry is a mystery though.

    Team chemistry, leadership both mental and emotional are all part and parcel of the human condition. To say that they do not exist simply because they aren’t quantifiable is being a wee bit short-sighted.

    It’s funny in a way. Take two players who are mirror images of each other physically and who are also equal in all the measurables (bat speed, hand/eye coordination, etc). Let these two guys play for two teams who are mirror images of each other. By going strictly on talent then the two should end the year with matching stats.

    You know already that they won’t. No way. What is being left out of the equation is experience, maturity, drive to succeed, and heart (willingness to give oneself up for his team mates).

    An organization can have a direct impact on experience and drive to succeed. Heart and maturity is out of their hands, although they can help things along. Culture of winning is a teachable concept and not a nebulous idea. We, all of us, are products of our environment and we reflect that environment in the many aspects of our lives. When an organization actively tries to create an environment of winning, then each person involved gets affected. Hell, even we as fans get affected in some small way.

    I’ll get off of my soapbox now.

    Lonnie