What is Leadership?

[metirish]

I think some people are born leaders and some need to grow into that role and frankly some are not suited for it , I think Wright could grow into that role if he wants it but I don't think it can be thrust on him because he is the clubs best player .

Johnette Howard from Newsday thinks it's time Wright stood up to the role.

] Mets' Wright needs to step right up, knock club Johnette Howard It was encouraging to hear Billy Wagner call out Oliver Perez and the rest of his Mets teammates after Wednesday's 13-1 embarrassment against the Pittsburgh Pirates, baseball's perennial doormat. At least someone was disgusted. But such complaints would have been better coming from Mets third baseman David Wright. Or Carlos Beltran. Not just the Mets' closer. When you look around the Mets' clubhouse today and ask yourself who the leader of this tepid, puzzling team is, no one instantly leaps to mind. The Mets don't have someone who can transcend all cliques and be the straight-talking conscience of the club, a guy who demands accountability and imposes a personality or ethic on the team -- hurt feelings be damned. It's a lot to ask of anybody. It needn't come from just one player. And Wagner deserves credit for at least trying. But the truth is, in the pecking order of professional sports, a closer's influence in a baseball clubhouse is only slightly greater than a placekicker's clout in football. Teammates respect those guys when they do their jobs under pressure. But a closer or a kicker is a specialist. And that erodes their sway among the guys who are on the field every day for every play. Former Mets closer John Franco was a rare exception. An ace like injured Mets starter Pedro Martinez used to be is another. The longer Martinez is gone, the more it feels as if the Mets miss his personality even more than his pitching. He had a way of giving this team swagger when it had none, and lighting up the room just when the dog days were dragging everyone down or life felt too grim. The clubhouse is always a happier, noisier place when Pedro is around. Yet he also stood for uncompromising high performance and heart and passion. Wright has the game to be a bigger clubhouse conscience than he is. And now there's also a crying need for him to do it. He has the personality and scruples to take on the role. What he should reconsider is why he continues to defer to Beltran or Carlos Delgado or Wagner. A couple of weeks ago, Newsday's David Lennon did a fascinating interview with Wright in which Wright spoke about refusing to fraternize with opponents, even close friends, once he's in uniform and on the field because he's there to compete. Period. It's the sort of give-no-quarter attitude the Mets need. It's an old-school conviction that distinguishes Wright from most of his contemporaries. The bothersome thing was, who knew? Did you know Wright felt that strongly? Doesn't that conviction heighten your respect for him? So why keep it under wraps? Wright is too good to give way to Beltran and Delgado anymore. And what's at stake for the Mets is too important. They've been chasing the ghost of 2006 for two seasons now. They'd better hope their moment hasn't passed. Talent guarantees nothing. Wright has spoken frankly at other times this season about sensitive topics, such as the Mets' lack of a "killer instinct." But it was bothersome last Sunday when Wright used his age -- 25 -- as a disqualifier for not urging Delgado to take a curtain call Mets fans were imploring him to make. It would've been preferable if Wright had said he'll pick his spots and save taking stands for more important things. The Mets' self-sabotaging ways that Wagner cited certainly qualify. Someone needs to ride herd on these Mets. It can't always be manager Willie Randolph -- though it's about time for him to air out this team. The question isn't whether Randolph lets guys have it behind the scenes, because he does. The question is whether some of these Mets can take it. Every championship club that ever existed will tell you that winning imposes its own discipline within a team. Being mentally engaged and responsible to each other is a given. A collective spirit and mind-set takes hold. And right now, the Mets don't have it. They swore they learned the importance of each game from their collapse last year. But they don't play like it. They seem distracted. Delgado isn't hitting and now he's fielding like a bum. Perez is playing for a new contract. New ace Johan Santana seems to have no interest in a high public profile. Shortstop Jose Reyes is struggling to make the transition from talented prodigy to true professional. Criticism gets to him. Beltran is a terrific talent, but he doesn't have the personality to be a clubhouse sheriff. He seems more interested in stiff-arming a city that always expects more no matter how much good he does. So if it's not Wright who leads the Mets, then who is it? .

[Guest AG/DC]

Wright's a year away, at least, from leadershp. You probably have to be in the top half of the clubhouse in terms of tenure. Moreover, I think he may be one of those guys whose done such a good job becoming a great baseball player that he forgot to develop a personality. And a broad personality can get in the way of becoming a great baseball player, so that's mostly good.

It's a great, I guess, that he's not a a combustible hothead like George Brett, but at least Brett was a combustible hothead, and that's sort of something to get behind. But I think that's the kind of thing the press corps misses sometimes more than the team. Because when your best player starts letting on like he's Sgt. Shitface leading his squad over the hill, that story just writes itself.

Johnnette Howard's a good writer, but rarely ever suprising. This is exactly the kind of story that comes from the corps of a team on a day off to travel west after an embarrassing and confusing loss.

Howard needs to step up and show some leadership.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Johnette Howard wrote: "Wright is too good to give way to Beltran and Delgado anymore...."

I thought that Ollie Perez would've been more effective last game if it was David Wright yelling at him "We want a pitcher, not a belly-itcher" instead of, say, Beltran or Delgado.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I thought that Ollie Perez would've been more effective last game if it was David Wright yelling at him "We want a pitcher, not a belly-itcher" instead of, say, Beltran or Delgado.

Then again, maybe not. Does David know how to say "We want a pitcher, not a belly-itcher" in spanish?

[Guest mario25]

All those things mentioned (Delgado-stinks,Beltran-quiet,Reyes-finding himself) are exactly why a Met needs to step up and become a leader of the team. The obvious choice is Wright but if he doesn't want it then why dont the Mets name a captain? Let the team vote on it... I think a guy like Schneider could be the man.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Then again, maybe not. Does David know how to say "We want a pitcher, not a belly-itcher" in spanish?

This could be like that "Yo la tengo" anecdote, but in reverse.

[batmagadanleadoff]

mario25 wrote: All those things mentioned ... are exactly why a Met needs to step up and become a leader of the team.

I'd bet that having a team captain is worth, on average, 2.43 extra wins a season. How many games out did the Mets finish last season?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Johnette Howard wrote: So if it's not Wright who leads the Mets, then who is it?

I think that Willie Randolph should be the team captain.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

Batmag is talking to himself again.

[Guest AG/DC]

There's a certain truth to it, though.

[Frayed Knot]

Mark Messier probably meant more from a leadership POV to those mid-'90s NYRangers than any other single player I can think of in team sports (plus a leader probably means more in hockey) and it certainly became fashionable to say how the '94 Cup team wasn't going to lose because "Mark Messier wouldn't allow them to".

Of course all that is easy to say when things are all said and done. But it needs to be noted that the Messier-led '92 Rangers were also the best reg season team (as was the '94 squad) until getting themselves unceremoniously drop-kicked in the 2nd round by an inferior Penguins team who were playing handicapped without their injured star Mario Lemieux.

The point of all this is that it's easy to crown leaders when things are going well and bemoan their absence when they're not, but that's often an after-the-fact assessment. If Messier was able to "not allow" his team to lose, why did he apparently allow it two years earlier? Or to almost miss the playoffs entirely in the season in between?
Keith was a great leader for the Mets but would he be remembered for that w/o the Game 6 comeback or would his 'left the dugout to drink beer and sulk' act have been cited as exactly the opposite if Carter's single carries farther and into Rice's glove? Especially as Keith apparently did nothing to discourage the likes of Kevin Mitchell to head into the clubhouse and make plane reservations home before being called out to pinch-hit?

Bottom line: Leadership is key ... except when it's not.

[Guest AG/DC]

Gary Carter would not allow Keith to allow the Mets to lose.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: But it needs to be noted that the Messier-led '92 Rangers were also the best reg season team .... Keith was a great leader for the Mets but [what about] his 'left the dugout to drink beer and sulk' act ....."

Nice post. You didn't get bonus points though, because there was nothing in there about enough of the Rickey Henderson playing cards crap because without Rickey, there wouldn'ta been any 1999 post-season in the first place and I don't see how Rickey playing cards even if he did which I don't know, prevented the always crappy Ordonez from hitting the ball past the pitcher all series long.

[Theoldmole]

There was the gag about the post-great Knick teams, when Walt Frazier was all that was left of the championship unit, where Clyde calls Red Holtzman one night and says, "Coach, this is the Captain," and Red replies, "Willis! Good to hear from you!"

[Guest AG/DC]

Is batmagadanleadoff Rickey Henderson?

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: Is batmagadanleadoff Rickey Henderson?

Yes. batmagadanleadoff is Rickey Henderson, says batmagadanleadoff in true illeist fashion.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Maybe I've been too saracastic about this topic. Maybe sometimes you really do gotta have some heart.

[batmagadanleadoff]

And check out Tug's groovy belt buckle!

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I can't believe they made those guys do that. Get Metzmerized was better.

[Guest AG/DC]

Seaver's flashing a gang symbol.

Is that McGraw with the big buckle?

[Benjamin Grimm]

="batmagadanleadoff"]

Let's see if I can name those Mets:

Back row: Agee, Boswell, Grote, Charles, Clendennon, Dyer, Garrett, don't know, Gentry, Grote again.

Middle row: Harrelson, don't know, Koosman, Kranepool, don't know, McGraw, don't know, Ryan, Seaver.

Front row: Shamsky, Swoboda, don't know, don't know, Piggy, Rube Walker, don't know, don't know.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: Is that McGraw with the big buckle?

Yeah. The Mets are, for the most part, in alphabetical order by last name.

[Guest AG/DC]

Well, I prefer that to my theory of "All negros to the back, please."

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Let's see if I can name those Mets: Back row: Agee, Boswell, Grote, Charles, Clendennon, Dyer, Garrett, don't know, Gentry, Grote again. Middle row: Harrelson, don't know, Koosman, Kranepool, don't know, McGraw, don't know, Ryan, Seaver. Front row: Shamsky, Swoboda, don't know, don't know, Piggy, Rube Walker, don't know, don't know.

Cal Koonce is left of Koosman. Jim McAndrew right of the Krane. Cardwell's your first Grote. Ron Taylor's right of Swoboda. Al Weis on the end. Rod Gaspar between Garrett and Gentry.

Rube Walker? I thought that was Fred Mertz.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Guest

[metirish]

Johnette Howard wrote.

] New ace Johan Santana seems to have no interest in a high public profile.

What does that mean , he's not rah rah enough , or at all?

[Benjamin Grimm]

So I guess that's Gaspar between Garrett and Gentry.

Who's that between McGraw and Ryan?

That must be Al Weis as the second-to-last in the front row, but who's the last guy? Is it Doogie Howser?

[Guest AG/DC]

metirish wrote: Johnette Howard wrote. ] New ace Johan Santana seems to have no interest in a high public profile. What does that mean , he's not rah rah enough , or at all?

It means she needed to flesh out the article.

Where the heck is Cleon?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Who's that between McGraw and Ryan? That must be Al Weis as the second-to-last in the front row, but who's the last guy? Is it Doogie Howser?

Maybe this link'll help.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: Well, I prefer that to my theory of "All negros to the back, please."

Maybe Ed used both methods. Take another look at the picture.

[Frayed Knot]

]You didn't get bonus points though, because there was nothing in there about enough of the Rickey Henderson playing cards crap

I thought about mentioning that but I was getting long-winded enough as it was.

Keith & Mitchell in clubhouse while '86 playoff game going on = cute, funny story because team eventually won
Rickey & Bobby in clubhouse while '99 playoff game going on = not caring bastards because team eventually lost