Rather, I think the problem is that it is not definable. Nobody denies that motivation, leadership and clubhouse presence exist and contribute, but nobody can anticipate what will provide those things. In some clubhouses, it seems to result from comradeship; in others from conflict. Sometimes we associate motivation with youthful exuberance; other times with veteran calm. Some point to the mix of youth and age; others to the predominance of one or the other.

And yet in other cases, it appears that winning is not correlated at all with any clubhouse factor, that in fact, all the assumed positives are turned on their heads. We see examples of excellent clubhouses turning toxic from one year to the next based on won/lost records, and yet with the same core of players on hand. Here is a question. Suppose the Rays had added Garza, Bartlett and the rest of the contributors to 2008 but also kept both Dukes and Young. Would their problem personalities have poisoned the clubhouse and led to another disappointing season? It’s not just that we cannot measure it; it’s that we can’t define what it is, why it is or how it affects things. After all, did Young’s personality force Minnesota out of a shot at the AL Central crown? Did Manny keep Boston out of post-seasons? Or did Damon’s labeling them the idiots or Millar demanding they pony up trump his negative influence? (I did not see much ponying up in Baltimore last year.)

I do think we can identify anecdotes that seem to have direct effects. I remember seeing Julio Franco pushing an apparently resentful Carlos Beltran out of the dugout to acknowledge the cheers of Met fans after a home run. That bit of veteran savvy seemed to re-energize Beltran and repair some of the hostile relationship he had with those fans. I am guessing that Percival’s antics in spring training 2008 helped focus the Rays and helped Maddon get across his message(s). But beyond such vague statements, what more is there to say, and if nothing, why do more than mention it and then move on?

My objection to commentary on such issues is that it often replaces analysis in stories that pretend to be analytical. If the story is essentially human interest, fine. Be eloquent on the subject. Explore it in depth. But if the story claims to explain something, then it seems to me nothing more than pap to pay much heed to such issues.