Add new comment

I get that neither of us think these anecdotes are proof of anything, but the flaw in your response is that it ignores the 2012-2013 Diamondbacks, which were both .500 teams despite employing Bloomquist. If I credit everything you're saying as true, then there's possibly a honeymoon period of a year with Bloomquist, best-case scenario.
Willie's not responsible for his team's W/L record. Any given team he's been on probably would've been about 1-2 wins better if he was replaced with the best utility infielder in baseball. I just don't see how he gets credit as a guy who can be relied on to create a winning culture when he's never been part of a sustained winning culture.
Some of the intangibles you mention are real, and some of them are coachspeak (and I don't think you'd disagree with that). The rub is that it's pretty much impossible to tell which is which. Nice, guy + grit + a history on winning teams doesn't automatically mean a guy has the "glue guy" factor. Nice guy + grit WITHOUT a history on winning teams certainly doesn't = "glue guy" in my book.
If you're going to factor in things like "creating a winning culture through good chemistry" in roster decisions, I'd think that past experience as part of a winning culture should be a minimum requirement.
I don't think anyone--not even people who quote WAR in every baseball discussion-thinks that intangibles can or should be ignored entirely, it's just that you get much more predictable results by basing your decisions on things that are concrete and measurable. For all we know, notorious bad teammates like Jeff Kent and AJ Pierzynski actually do more to create winning chemistry than gritty coaches' favorites like Bloomquist -- more than a few ballplayers throughout history have said they play better when they're angry. On the other hand, more often than not a team's performance lines up pretty well with the talent of its players, as expressed in ways that are capable of at least rough measurement.
I'm not saying there's nothing to your point about a player-mentor like Bloomquist having immeasurable benefits. I still think the best argument for signing him is that he's got a high likelihood of being above replacement level, though.