Learning Leadership from Chris Gimenez

So, generally disregarded here, what if Falvey and Levine like Gimenez so much, ostensibly for his "leadership", what's to make you think that maybe they intend to keep him around, if not as a coach, how 'bout as manager?

I don't know who's "led" the Twins since Torri Hunter. There were times when it seemed like Dozier, and among all of them Escobar seemed to me as the steadiest, most positive guy on the roster. Belisle? Can't personally say I ever saw anything about leadership coming out of him, but then we weren't sitting next to him in the bullpen every day, were we? For all we know, Falvey and Levine like Belisle just as much as Gimenez and maybe for the same reasons. 

Very strange. We need Gimenez like we need a hole in the head. I generally like Molly but this veteran security blanket thing is silly.

I love it! Linus talking about a security blanket. Spectacular!

Gimenez - "Derek has a great eye for pitching so that should be one area to look forward to as they move forward. Thad is great with people and relationships as well as advanced metrics."

Derek picked new pitchers that bombed, and the report is also that these guys do not have people skills, but are "cold". 

Proof is in results. Belisle and Gimenez ........ I mean really.... just how inspired can a young player be with these guys as their (self?) appointed leaders?

So, generally disregarded here, what if Falvey and Levine like Gimenez so much, ostensibly for his "leadership", what's to make you think that maybe they intend to keep him around, if not as a coach, how 'bout as manager?

 

If they were leaning that way, I’d much prefer to see Mike Redmond as manager.

I know that the moderator wants to limit the discussion, but in fact, this thread really  does represent the frustration of the fans and is a healthy outlet for that frustration. 

I think the whole leadership thing is overblown. I would rather have Astudillo getting innings behind the plate yet Gimenez is playing frequently.

How do you know it's overblown if we really can't measure it's influence?

I think it is important sometimes, depending on who the leader is.  I think Jeter was a very important element to the Yankee teams because he led through example.  The guy had such a high standard, worked so hard and give it all on the field.  Other players saw that and understood they better do likewise.

It matters as much as poor leadership, which can sidetrack a team

How do you know it's overblown if we really can't measure it's influence?

 

I think it is important sometimes, depending on who the leader is. I think Jeter was a very important element to the Yankee teams because he led through example. The guy had such a high standard, worked so hard and give it all on the field. Other players saw that and understood they better do likewise.

 

It matters as much as poor leadership, which can sidetrack a team

I’m surprised that you have that much personal information about Jeter. I want good players and will worry about leadership later. Your mileage may vary.

from robbing Garver of ABs, to hero leader. wow

Torii Hunter switched teams via free agency 4 times.  With the Twins his highest WAR was 4.2.  His career high WAR was 4.7 in 2012 (Angels).  He accumulated 42.7 WAR over 17 seasons (average 2.5 WAR/season).  Over the period from 1999 to 2015 he ranks 31st in total WAR. I have compared the records of the teams during switch years.  The numbers in parenthesis is the comparison in wins to the following year.

2007/2008 Twins(+6) Angels(+7)

2012/2013 Angels(-11) Tigers(+5)

2014/2015 Tigers(-16) Twins(+13)

2015/2016 Twins(-24)

3 out of 4 times the team that Torii Hunter left did worse the following year.  Every team he went to did better.  Is this because Torii Hunter was a great player, or because Torii Hunter was a great club house leader?  I think it is because he was a great club house leader.  Leadership matters a lot.

Everyone who has ever worked more than one job knows how effective leaders influence organizations.

There always has been and always will be people in baseball circles who will die on the hill insisting that such a thing doesn't exist. They demand hard evidence. Yet soft sciences are real -- businesses run on them, universities teach them, and we all experience them. We can't put a gauge on language development but we can learn a thing or two about it and be predictive about it, same with countless other fields, processes, and products.

What people don't realize they are saying is that baseball teams don't need leaders, and of course that's not true. No one says these words directly, but when people argue this point this is ultimately what they are arguing without realizing that's what they are arguing. No leaders = no coaches, no mentors, no managers, no collaboration.

I would argue that Torii's leadership style was counter to what people think of as leadership. He is in the work/life balance camp. Work hard, but also take the time to blow off steam and to put that extra energy into letting your guard down. This is a good philosophy for a job that has a countless 12-hour days in half a year. Sure Hunter helped with baseball skills, but every team has people to do that.

3 out of 4 times the team that Torii Hunter left did worse the following year.  Every team he went to did better.  Is this because Torii Hunter was a great player, or because Torii Hunter was a great club house leader?  I think it is because he was a great club house leader.  Leadership matters a lot.

This completely disregards any other changes to the rosters. And as spycake pointed out, it disregards any improvements or regression from existing players on those rosters. Basically, it proves nothing in any capacity.

There are several academic papers that have attempted to quantify the importance of leadership attributes.

I have copied what I consider to be the relevant portions of the research below.  I have linked the research paper for those who are interested in reading this.  The results suggest that social cohesion and social networking are correlated with a teams success.  The role of team leaders is to promote these attributes.  

The Relationship Among Athlete Leadership Behaviors and Cohesion in Team Sports
Diana J.E. Vincer and Todd M. Loughead, University of Windsor

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.841.8356&rep=rep1&type=pdf

This study examined the influence of athlete leadership behaviors on perceptions
of team cohesion. The participants were 312 athletes from 25 varsity and club level
teams. Each participant completed the Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron,
Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985) that assessed cohesion and the Leadership Scale
for Sports (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) that assessed athlete leadership behaviors.
Overall, it was found that individual perceptions of Training and Instruction, and
Social Support positively influenced all four dimensions of cohesion (ATG-T,
ATG-S, GI–T, GI-S). Furthermore, Autocratic Behavior was negatively associated
with the four dimensions of cohesion. Finally, Democratic Behavior was positively
related to ATG-T. These findings provide researchers, sport psychology consultants,
athletes, and coaches with some initial evidence that it is important to foster
the development of athlete leader behaviors to influence the team environment.

Note. ATG-T = Individual attractions to the group-task, ATG-S = Individual attractions to the groupsocial,
GI-T = Group integration-task, GI-S = Group integration-social. TI = Training and instruction,
DB = Democratic behavior, AB = Autocratic behavior, SS = Social support, PF = Positive feedback.

The first aspect pertaining to the results is the positive relationship between
athlete leader behaviors and cohesion. Based on the operational definitions of the
subscales of cohesion and leadership, the results suggested that athlete leaders who
demonstrated leadership behaviors toward improving performance through rigorous
training and instruction and showed an increased amount of concern for the team
member’s welfare had teammates who perceived a higher sense involvement in the
productivity of team goals, of personal acceptance and social interactions within
their team, of similarity, closeness, and unity within the group around the team’s
task objectives, and to their team as a social unit.  The results of the present supplement the Dupuis et al. (2006) finding by suggesting that the leadership behaviors of Training and Instruction, and

Social Support can positively influence a team’s cohesiveness both at a task and
social level. Thus, it is important for athlete leaders to use high levels of Training
and Instruction, and Social Support behaviors.

A second point pertains to the negative relationship between the athlete leader
behavior of Autocratic Behavior and all four dimensions of cohesion. Previous
coaching leadership research has shown that this leadership behavior is negatively
related to both task and social cohesion (e.g., Gardner et al., 1996). Thus, the athletes’
perception of their cohesiveness (i.e., team’s productivity toward their goals
and their personal acceptance within the team) was lower when they felt their athlete
leaders taking a more authoritative role in the decision making process. This negative
relationship between Autocratic Behavior and cohesion (task and social) may
be viewed from a cohesion perspective as the athletes feeling a decreased sense
of closeness, bonding, personal involvement, and personal acceptance with their
teammates. Consequently, it would appear that autocratic type of athlete leadership
behaviors can detract from a team’s cohesiveness.

2nd Article

TIES, LEADERS, AND TIME IN TEAMS: STRONG INFERENCE ABOUT NETWORK STRUCTURE’S EFFECTS ON TEAM VIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE
PRASAD BALKUNDI State University of New York at Buffalo
DAVID A. HARRISON The Pennsylvania State University

(PDF available at Research gate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274753287_Ties_leaders_and_time_in_teams_Strong_inference_about_network_structure%27s_effects_on_team_viability_and_performance)

How do members’ and leaders’ social network structures help or hinder team effectiveness? A meta-analysis of 37 studies of teams in natural contexts suggests that teams with densely configured interpersonal ties attain their goals better and are more committed to staying together; that is, team task performance and viability are both higher.Further, teams with leaders who are central in the teams’ intragroup networks and teams that are central in their intergroup network tend to perform better. Time sequencing, member familiarity, and tie content moderate structure-performance connections. Results suggest stronger incorporation of social network concepts into theories about team effectiveness.

 If all Buxton needed to pull it all together to be a superstar, he’d have his mentor by now.

It is more complicated than this, although I don't understand why.  This is why leadership is such an intangible.  There was a lot written on TD as well as others venues about the impact Torii Hunter had on Aaron Hicks.  Many of the discussions and questions about batting performance for Hicks can be applied to Buxton.  I have linked several of these articles below. Why was Torii Hunter able to help Aaron Hicks reach his potential, when the Twins coaches and manager could not.  It is not as if they were not trying.  

http://twinsdaily.com/blog/540/entry-6743-maturity-experience-are-behind-aaron-hicks-reaching-his-potential/

https://nypost.com/2017/06/03/tough-love-with-that-guy-how-mentor-has-helped-aaron-hicks/

https://nypost.com/2015/11/18/torii-hunter-reveals-advice-to-immature-aaron-hicks/

I’m surprised that you have that much personal information about Jeter. I want good players and will worry about leadership later. Your mileage may vary.

The education of Linus Van Pelt continues

Speaking of that, let's bring in Dusty Baker.

is it really? How can one say it’s complicated in one sentence, then say that Hunter’s comments apply to Buxton too?

Hunter works for the MN Twins. If the Hunter method applies, then why isn’t it working?

Leadership isn’t talking a good talk. Leadership is actions and behaviors.

Leadership is winning.

What I meant was that Byron Buxton has similar issues that Aaron Hicks had as this stage in the development, i.e, he can not hit.  Hunter's relationship with Hick's may be very different than Hunter's relationship with Buxton.  For one, they were teammates, vs a coach-player relationship.  What clicked for Hicks may not work for Buxton or may not work for Sano  or Duffy or any other player that is underperforming.  Leadership through actions and behaviors increases the likelihood of winning.  Leadership will help make the most of the talent that a team has.