There’s a huge difference between “this is a happy clubhouse versus this is a unhappy clubhouse” and “this is a clubhouse where one nationality of player is so resented it’s been reported the team feared for their safety.”

And isn’t that precisely an example of an “unhappy clubhouse”? What are the classic examples of “bad chemistry”: jerkwad individuals who call out their teammates, or who threaten to (or actually do) get into fistfights with them.

I think chemistry is so ill-defined that trying to lump this into “chemistry” isn’t helpful.

For examples of bad chemistry, see above. There’ve been plenty of examples throughout major league history, including not just personality conflicts, but tension over race. (This bad chemistry of course may not have hurt them in terms of wins-and-losses, e.g. Yankees/Billy Martin/Reggie, but in some cases, such as possibly the Mariners, there may be an effect.)

For a definition: “actions, words, or attitudes — off the field, so not including hitting, pitching, defense, or baserunning — which affect a team’s ability to win”. (Yes there are still loopholes in that definition, we have to add this does not mean stuff like stealing signs or better scouting, but rather stuff not directly related to on-the-field action.)

I agree with most others on this site that most of the so-called chemistry examples are probably bogus. The notion of some clubhouse chemistry that causes players to play better or worse is probably bogus in almost all cases.

But the notion that a hostile or negative workplace environment is not the kind of place that people will want to work at, and that it thus becomes harder to recruit good employees — that’s just an elementary human resource principle. And that will affect a team’s ability to win just as surely as brilliant or lousy drafting and trading will.

If you refuse to call this an example of “clubhouse chemistry”, then what do you call it? “Clubhouse climate”? “Hostility directed at certain players”? “Workplace negativity”? If that’s not bad chemistry, then what is?

The Mariners (and other teams) pretty much jumped in way after the Red Sox scouts had their hooks on him, it seems. I’m surprised he even bothered to listen to any other offers, since he was pretty gung-ho Red Sox from the beginning from all the reports in Japan.

I think the big fuss was that there had been a gentleman’s agreement in place about MLB scouts not talking to top amateurs before they were subject to the NPB draft, which was violated here, thus everyone went all up in arms. I have a feeling if he didn’t know there was MLB interest in him, or if there hadn’t been, he would have entered the NPB draft, being as he was listed in all the draft magazines as a top pick in the draft this year. (Oddly his player page on ENEOS’s team site said, to answer “where do you see yourself in 20 years?”, simply “I want to be filming commercials for ENEOS”.)

I don’t think the Mariners’ team image had anything to do with this, though to be fair, they aren’t anywhere as popular in Japan as the Red Sox right now, pure and simple. Ichiro’s kind of old news now, I think

You don’t think that a story that got national play here and in Japan about one of Japan’s most prominent players having his safety threatened plays a part in players considering coming to the team or not?

Of the handful of teams he was looking at, and all of the factors involved ($, ballclub, ballpark, weather, city, coaching staff), I find it very hard to believe that Tazawa was scared off by Baker’s report. I really do.

Maybe, just maybe, Japanese players don’t want to come here, like most players, because the organization has been a mess for a while.

And besides, who gives a flying you-know-what about Tazawa? I’d take Affeldt over him 8 days a week.

I think the Seattle Mariner’s reputation has taken a big hit thanks to Baker’s garbage which was featured prominently on the national sites.

Indeed what Japanese player would want to come here?
As someone summed up above:

So, if I were a Japanese player, I might wonder if: 1) the Mariners players are racists; or 2) if the local press will publish anonymous slander about me. Neither is something I would want.

All Baker’s longwinded torturous explanations/lame excuses and all the ridiculous attacks from anonymous internet Baker apologists (some popping up here, sadly) won’t bring back a smidgeon of the credibility Baker lost as a reporter, or prevent people from calling him out on his trashy article.

But even so, I suspect from his track record that it was “mission accomplished” and some satisfaction for Baker in getting Ichiro’s name dragged through the mud on a national scale.

I think too many journalists, including sports journalists, imagine they are Woodward and Bernstein and will win the Pulitzer for their latest expose. They end up using anonymous sources thinking that will add gravity to their reporting, implying that the information is so important that the source could be seriously harmed if he or she was identified.

The reality is, I suspect, that most anonymous sources are nothing more than disgruntled individuals seeking to gain advantage or settle scores by slandering their opponents. In addition, I think some anonymous sources are inventions on the part of the journalist – a way for the journalist to insert his own observations or opinions into the piece.

In a sports setting, a writer may run into problems in the clubhouse if they baldly proclaim that player A is a jerk. Similarly, he will run into problems with his editor if he submits copy that says “I think player A is a jerk.”

If, however, he cites an “anonymous source” for the proposition that “other” people (maybe even “many” people) think player A is a jerk, then he can probably get away with it. It is even possible he may be lauded for having such important sources.

So, if I were a Japanese player, I might wonder if: 1) the Mariners players are racists; or 2) if the local press will publish anonymous slander about me. Neither is something I would want.

Baker is a fine writer. He made a mistake, however, and needs to learn to avoid basing stories only on anonymous sources. Derek and Dave were, and are, correct to call him on it.

As I stated though – could be many reasons and that’s just one of them. Could also be exactly what Baker said – japanese players are just like American players and want to go to a winner – and lets face it – the last 4 years we’ve been anything but a winner. Could be that Boston/NYY is just as big there as they are here as far as high-profile places to play. Could also be that nobody even in Japan wants to play with Ichiro because of his attitude problem. Could be that they want to go some place they can shine and since Ichiro is the biggest Japanese baseball player that they feel they will always be in his shadow.

And as I stated before, laughable.

Given what BAKER has written before, you’re not making a whole lot of sense with your hypotheticals. See for example, Ichiro’s leadership of his team during the World Baseball.

May help to do some research before writing?

Although we don’t know what’s really going on in the Mariner clubhouse, the players certainly do, and it’s no great leap to deduce that Japanese players thinking about jumping to the Mariners will ask Ichiro or Johjima what it’s really like. Maybe it’s actually fine. But if not, then we’ve got a chemical effect par excellence, from reagents to reactions.

Um, define chemistry? I think chemistry is so ill-defined that trying to lump this into “chemistry” isn’t helpful.

As long as we’re being pedantic, my argument here is not about chemistry — it’s about whether or not, when advancing the case that the M’s have a reputation problem recruiting Japanese players, it’s odd to not consider the Ichiro-is-being-threatened-and-there-was-a-team-meeting controversy.