Recently, I've been focusing much attention on the concept of organizational culture. I've been questioning the sabremetric wisdom of simply looking at player production, adding the numbers up, and then waiting for the spreadsheet to balance. I have a growing conviction that larger chunks of what many of the number crunchers classify as "standard" variation - or "luck" - is actually not.

When you have a team like Arizona, that is outscored by 20 runs, but goes 90-72 in 2007, it defies EVERYTHING we understand about run scoring and winning. That team should have gone 79-83. That's +11 to pythag. Or Seattle in 2007, +9 to pythag, (who should also have won 79). Or Angels in 2008, +12 to pythag.

Okay, streaks are oddities. Winning 20 in a row is an EXTREME rare occurence, which is an obvious outlier from standard patterns. But, when you start noticing double-digit pythag bagging every year, it makes you wonder is it really just luck, or are these teams tapping into something? The stock answer is luck, because the VERY strong pattern is to see regression to the mean the next season. But, even there, teams that beat pythag in a season tend to have good years in the next, while teams that are well under pythag tend to have poor seasons, (though each type of team tends to more closely track to pythag those next years.

I am increasingly of the opinion that what is at play here is not luck, but psychology. As Crash said to Annie in "Bull Durham", "If you think you are winning because you're wearing women's underwear, then you ARE." Baseball at the major league level is incredibly difficult. Only a select few are athletically gifted enough to compete at that level. But, once you have been weaned down to relative equals in a competitive environment, the impact of psychology on outcome is magnified.

Crash noted the difference of ONE (1) hit per week. With 6 games played, and 25 at bats during a week, what is the difference between getting 6 hits or 7 hits or 8? That's a .240 average, .280 average, or .320. That's a 40 point difference in batting average -- that means a player got one hit more (or less) than another. Standard logic says that over a whole season things even out, and ability rises to its expected level.

Seattle in 2007, AS A TEAM, performed above their projection levels. The projection systems said X -- and the Mariners had 75% of its players performing above X. In 2008, AS A TEAM, they performed below their projection levels. One has only two choices in viewing the data -- either throw up your hands and admit that there is absolutely no control over fluctuation whatsoever, so going into any season, random chance is as likely to make the team great (or awful), as making good personnel moves will be. Or, accept that notion that items beyond raw talent CAN impact the final tallies in significant ways.

The every day players did not change between 2007 and 2008, (except Guillen was swapped out for Wilkerson). So, what changed? The primary difference between the two seasons was EXPECTATION. In 2007, prediction was failure. The team was projected last by most prognosticators. In 2008, many were projecting them to compete for the division title, and when the Angels had some Spring Training injuries, expectations soared.

The physical dimensions of the park didn't change. The players physically present were largely the same. But, the LANDSCAPE had changed. Because of the 2007 "surprise" results, the addition of Bedard and Silva jacked expectations through the roof. And here's where it gets really tricky. Every individual player reacts differently to environment.

While it might be nice to have an entire team of guys with a Pete Rose attitude of giving 100% every minute of every game, that's just not reality. Every player is an individual with his personally unique psychological hot buttons. Of course, some traits may be more common than others. One might well construct "baseball player" profiles that explain the general behavior patterns of 70% or more of pro baseball players. But, physchology is not an absolute science. Everyone perceives the world based on their unique background and biases.

But groups also have different behavior patterns than individuals. A single person might never raise a hand in anger against another, or might never commit wanton destruction of someone else's property alone. But, when they become part of the mob, personal morals may vanish, and the "mob mentality" can take over. For a baseball team, they can take on the personality of their star, or the manager, or of a vocal team leader. There is not a one-size-fits-all answer to this type of question.

Expectations can be a very dangerous animal. In many cases, high expectations are wonderful, because expectations often lay the ground work for performance. As a general rule, if you expect to succeed, (or fail), you more than likely will. But, when the real world delivers different results than expectations, positive or negative ramifications can multiply. If you're expecting to failure, and for a short time, you begin succeeding, the perception of reality changes, and in fact, reality itself can mutate around you.

Then again, if you expect to ace a test, and don't study, you aren't likely to ace that test. High expectations "can" lead to laziness. And low expectations can lead to increased work ethic. (They can also lead to premature surrender). It's not something that you can easily point to as predictive, because the response to the stimulus is still largely up to the individuals in question.

As the Mariners have made moves and the 2009 season has grown closer, I have been generally against the idea of acquiring any "big name" free agents. My rationale has been that big name FA acquisitions are often viewed as "saviors", and seem to be more likely to result in regression or stagnation than forward movement. While I believe the data still supports this notion in a general sense, I'm more convinced that this is really a major simplification of a very complex issue. That issue is the basic one of instilling a "culture of winning" into your organization.

Over history, there have been many teams, in many sports, that have had extended periods of success. Most had a core group of players that were an on-going part of that success. Staubach or Bradshaw or Montana in football -- Magic, Bird, Jordan in basketball -- Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine - or Jeter, Posada, Rivera in baseball -- just to name a few. The default belief is that TALENT was the determining factor. Well, talent is needed, of course. But, I believe the underlying cause of dynasties is built on ATTITUDE, not talent. These great players were talented, yes. But, they instilled a winning ATTITUDE in those around them. Over the years, when they could have rested on their laurels, they continued to work harder than everyone else. So, anyone new coming into the organization could immediately see that it wasn't JUST talent, but incredibly hard work that accompanied that talent that made these players extra special.

I believe that the Mariners have been working with a major handicap since the core players from the glory years, (Edgar, et al), went away. Ichiro became the team leader by default. But, while his work ethic is not in question - I believe his cultural division from his teammates has been and is likely going to continue to be a problem. Ichiro has a work ethic and demeanor that would likely be incredibly valuable in a Japanese clubhouse. But, the Seattle team is a hodgepodge of differing cultures and roots. Diversity can be a good thing - but for a TEAM to come together, it needs a binding force. I believe Ichiro's particular brand of work ethic and clubhouse presence is not particularly conducive to working in an American clubhouse. (I believe the stories of his pre-game profanity-filled tirades at the All Star Game indicates he realizes this -- but he also knows that he could not get away with his once-a-year schtick on a daily basis).

I think Jose Guillen had far more impact in 2007 than I originally gave him credit for. The young players are not ready to lead. The imports like Sexson and Beltre weren't the answer. The biggest talent on the team other than Ichiro was Felix, a pitcher, (and pitchers are an entity unto themselves, and therefore rarely team leaders). Guillen provided an emotional spark the club desperately needed.

Z has noted that the club actually has a lot of talent. It certinaly isn't a powerhouse, but it shouldn't have lost 101 games, either. I am firmly convinced that neither Abreu or Dunn would be a help in this regard. There are many in the blog-o-sphere who are dreaming of a big bat to come in and help fix things. They are looking for a savior. But, what the Mariners have been missing in recent years has not been production, so much as a soul.

I don't know that Griffey would be that soul. But, I think out of all the players available on the open market, he's the only one I believe "could" be. His Seattle roots has "potential" to bring something to the table no other FA could do. Though I am skeptical that at this stage in his career, with his talent eroding, and a perception of being fragile, that even he could pull off the type of clubhouse transformation that is so clearly needed. Talent-wise, I believe the Mariners have an average offense, and slightly above average pitching. But, I think their defense has been putrid - and the root cause of that is a listlessness infecting the team as a whole.

Remember that 40 points of average based on one extra hit per week? I believe this listlessness that I speak of is probably costing each position out there one play per week, (as an average - I am not suggesting that this lackluster play is literally divided evenly). Twenty-seven weeks time nine players is 243 hits. Tampa made up 300 hits defensively in a single year. Yes, they changed some players - but the ENTIRE team was infected by defensive desire, which turned a good staff with poor results into a great staff with outstanding results.

I do not know if F-gut and Endy or "Waka" can light a fire the way Guillen was able to do. But, I do believe the only "quick" fix for Seattle is for it to find that winning attitude that infused EVERYONE on the team back in the day. I believe that the key to future success begins with rekindling a defensive spirit that has been missing since about 2003. That may not be enough by itself to get the club into the post-season, but I believe that this is what the club needs FIRST, before it goes fishing for a clean-up hitter. I also believe that until they take the state of their defense seriously, (and it appears so far that Z does), then they are destined to have a staff a lot like Tampa in 2007 -- a bunch of pitchers that can strike a lot of people out, but cannot win games.

No single bat could POSSIBLY fix an entire team. Baseball allows star players only slightly more than 11% of the input to offensive production. If there is a savior out there - it is a player who can make a difference in that other 89% of production. A personality like Millar might be far more valuable to this team than a production horse like Dunn. Ten or 20 more HRs from a free agent are not what Seattle needs. They need a savior for their spirit -- a personality that can make a positive difference in the rest of the producers -- both offensively and defensively.