What's the one word that makes your eyes bleed?

[Arctic Blast]

Another politico-bit..."Hearts and minds."

[justanewguy]

"Knows how to win"

Okay, that's 4.

That's absolutely annoying.

In basketball it has some realism, and in football, it has some marginal realistic meaning, but in baseball there's absolutely no place for it.

Not so much a word but a phrase - "Step up". Somebody's gonna have to "step up" blah blah blah. No sh!t Sherlock. Why do these buffoons continue to get paid six figures for this piffle and spew?

This is easily one of the worst phrases in sports. In contrast to what I said above, this stuff doesn't even have meaning in sports that are more individually oriented, like basketball and football. Like a guy with no power is suddenly going to turn into a 40-HR power type guy, or a one dimensional bench scrub is going to suddenly turn into a triple-double guy, or a special teams player is going to step into an LB position and pick off a pass and put tons of pressure on a QB

More sports phrases that really need to die...

"Giving 110%"
"...you know..." (used at least 10 times in 90% of player interviews)

And some words:

"Scrappy"
"Grind/grinder/grinding"
"Will" (the noun form)

[metsguy234]

"Victor Zambrano"

[filihok]

RE 'Knows how to win'

In basketball it has some realism, and in football, it has some marginal realistic meaning, but in baseball there's absolutely no place for it.

I disagree.

There is clearly such a thing as 'knowing how to win'. It's simply making the right play in the situation.

An outfielder throwing to third base when there is no chance to get the runner out, missing his cut off man, and allowing a runner to go from first to second is the wrong play and makes you less likely to win.

A batters approach at the plate in certain situations. For example, late in a tie game with a runner at second. By most statistical measures the batter will not be successful greater than 60% of the time (getting a hit, walk, HB, etc). But even with a 60% expected failure rate the player can still be productive. Instead of swinging at the first pitch, which happens to be a slider on the inside corner, and grounding it to the left side, he can take the pitch and wait for a better pitch to hit. With two strikes he can hit the same pitch foul instead of grounding to the left side and maybe the next pitch will be more hitable or a pitch he is more likely to hit to the right side.

Maybe 'Knows how to win' isn't the best way to phrase it. But anyone who knows baseball knows the value of having players that make the right decision in tough spots.

[acetoolguy]

irreguardless, oh..and Bucky f'n Dent..

[dickay]

RE 'Knows how to win'



I disagree.

There is clearly such a thing as 'knowing how to win'. It's simply making the right play in the situation.

An outfielder throwing to third base when there is no chance to get the runner out, missing his cut off man, and allowing a runner to go from first to second is the wrong play and makes you less likely to win.

A batters approach at the plate in certain situations. For example, late in a tie game with a runner at second. By most statistical measures the batter will not be successful greater than 60% of the time (getting a hit, walk, HB, etc). But even with a 60% expected failure rate the player can still be productive. Instead of swinging at the first pitch, which happens to be a slider on the inside corner, and grounding it to the left side, he can take the pitch and wait for a better pitch to hit. With two strikes he can hit the same pitch foul instead of grounding to the left side and maybe the next pitch will be more hitable or a pitch he is more likely to hit to the right side.

Maybe 'Knows how to win' isn't the best way to phrase it. But anyone who knows baseball knows the value of having players that make the right decision in tough spots.

There are intangibles that nobody can put a number or stat to and quantify. I believe those who can't or refuse to understand them, probably haven't truly played organized sports. There are people who are just winners and will be winners wherever they go. Maybe not winning the whole thing, but they have an ability to improve those around them largely because of their work ethic, leadership abilities, game knowledge, and confidence. Jeter and Pedroia are two examples. If they weren't on such talented teams, I firmly believe they'd find a way to win wherever they were. Again, maybe not the championship but they'd improve their team with their intangibles greatly.

I agree in baseball this is harder than the other sports. McNabb is a guy who just knows how to win. He'd win wherever he plays. Same with a guy like Ray Lewis and Troy Palamalu. Ben Rothlisberger i'd put in there too. Basketball has become such an individual sport that its harder to find these people. Chris Paul would go in that category. A guy like Rasheed Wallace would go in this category to a lesser extent.

Its like porn...you know it when you see it. Some refuse to believe the eye test and will resort to their stats to try and diffuse this as myth. Thats fine...they can try all they want but to those who have seen it they know it to be true.

"knows how to win", "knows how to play the game"...these are cliche's for the most part but there is fact to them as well in some instances.

[HoustonGM]

There are intangibles that nobody can put a number or stat to and quantify. I believe those who can't or refuse to understand them, probably haven't truly played organized sports. There are people who are just winners and will be winners wherever they go. Maybe not winning the whole thing, but they have an ability to improve those around them largely because of their work ethic, leadership abilities, game knowledge, and confidence. Jeter and Pedroia are two examples. If they weren't on such talented teams, I firmly believe they'd find a way to win wherever they were. Again, maybe not the championship but they'd improve their team with their intangibles greatly.

Can you provide any players that did this (in baseball)? You can't cite Pedroia and Jeter, obviously, because there's no evidence of this since they already play on great teams and haven't switched teams. But, show me multiple players with these qualities that have improved their teams wherever they went, and maybe I'll believe it.

[bucher34]

Seems like Manny Ramirez makes players better (or play better atleast). Got the Dodgers rolling when he went over and got them into the playoffs (sweeping the Cubs I might add ).

[bucher34]

Was there for the Red Sox World Series titles, made the playoffs with the Indians. Always been a winner.

[HoustonGM]

Was there for the Red Sox World Series titles, made the playoffs with the Indians. Always been a winner.

The Indians and Red Sox were each great teams with or without Manny.

The Dodgers were 54-54 before the trade and 30-24 after the trade, which can be nearly completely attributed to Manny hitting like Babe Ruth and knocking Juan Pierre out of the lineup, and not him "knowing how to win."

[bucher34]

*Seems* is the key word. I'm not saying I believe it.

I don't think the Indians would have been great without Manny and until Manny got to the BoSox, they hadn't won a title. Not saying it is because of him, but he's won everywhere he's been. I don't know if I believe the whole theory until it is proven to me, but he is just an example of winning, most likely by coincidence, but nonetheless.

[HoustonGM]

I don't think the Indians would have been great without Manny

Take a look at those Indians teams sometime. They were ridiculous.

and until Manny got to the BoSox, they hadn't won a title.

And Manny wasn't the sole player brought in prior to the title. The team had been revamped.

Not saying it is because of him, but he's won everywhere he's been. I don't know if I believe the whole theory until it is proven to me, but he is just an example of winning, most likely by coincidence, but nonetheless.

I'm not looking for examples of players winning. Perhaps I should be more clear. I'm looking for examples of players who improve their teams everywhere they go beyond the performance they bring. Players that "find a way to win" regardless of the talent of their team.

If there's a perfectly sound explanation for why the new team improved, such as Manny Ramirez OPS+'ing 219 and knocking out-machine Juan Pierre to the bench, I'll believe that over "It's because that dude knows how to win and he improved his teammates by virtue of just being there."

[bucher34]

I'm on the same page.

[dickay]

The Indians and Red Sox were each great teams with or without Manny.

The Dodgers were 54-54 before the trade and 30-24 after the trade, which can be nearly completely attributed to Manny hitting like Babe Ruth and knocking Juan Pierre out of the lineup, and not him "knowing how to win."

Its not so easy in baseball, and one player alone can't and won't make them a 'winner' per se', especially year in and year out. But I do believe there are players who combine talent, leadership qualities, and the ability to will others to perform better. Some may not have terrific numbers either. I'd put Chase Utley in the conversation. A player like Mike Lowell. Rickey Henderson was someone who 'knew how to win'. Gary Sheffield is a good example. I believe he had outstanding leadership abilities and players wanted to play with him.

Its hard to put pitchers in this category of player as they aren't on the field everyday. Its hard to quantify it, but I do believe there are players that are plain winners. Just as in the business world, there are those that will succeed everywhere they go...same goes in sports IMO. Having played organized baseball up until the collegiate level, as well as other organized sports...i believe I have seen this.

[HoustonGM]

Its not so easy in baseball, and one player alone can't and won't make them a 'winner' per se', especially year in and year out. But I do believe there are players who combine talent, leadership qualities, and the ability to will others to perform better. Some may not have terrific numbers either. I'd put Chase Utley in the conversation. A player like Mike Lowell. Rickey Henderson was someone who 'knew how to win'. Gary Sheffield is a good example. I believe he had outstanding leadership abilities and players wanted to play with him.

GARY SHEFFIELD? The guy who made fielding errors on purpose because he wanted to be traded? And repeatedly accused managers of racism? That guy's a great leader who can will others to win?

How are you "identifying" these players? Gut instincts? Are you able to throw out ANYTHING to support this?