Who is the leader or leaders of this team

[DoubleOffTheWall]

When you look at this roster, do you see a team leader?

 

Maybe that's an overrated element, especially in a 25 man game like baseball.

 

But with Weaver in his twilight, I really wonder if this team has a leader or if there are a core of leaders like the 2002/Stoneman-built Angels had (Erstad, Salmon, Percival, Anderson)

 

You look at recent champions and I think you can ID who the leaders are.

 

Giants...Bumgarner and Pence

Royals...Wade Davis, Gordon and Salvador Perez

Cardinals...Wainwright, Pujols, Holliday

Blowsox...Ortiz, Pedroia

Phillies...Utley, Rollins, Hamels

 

 

I guess the team leader right now is Pujols. 

 

I for one don't really see one, with Pujols hobbling around and a shadow of his former self. Hard for Weave to lead when he's diminishing as a player quickly. 

 

Perhaps Trout will emerge as one. 

But I think our lack of leadership really highlights how weak of a core the team has. 

 

[Ohtaniland]

Pujols is the leader. He led Torii Hunter straight to the exit gate.

Edited January 5, 2016 by CALZONE

[tdawg87]

Pujols is the leader. He lead Torii Hunter straight to the exit gate.

Uh no. That was Arte.

[QuinlansMinion]

Forget leadership.  Just get on base.

No OBP, no rings.  Say it time and time again until it echoes in your mind because this is all that matters as it pertains to winning baseball games.  

[bloodbrother]

Todd Cunningham is the leader on this team IMO

[Stradling]

Pujols is the leader. He lead Torii Hunter straight to the exit gate.

K-Mart sucks.

[Stradling]

Weaver is the leader. Street is a leader. Albert is a leader.

[Guest]

Jose Rondon

[Oz27]

Leadership is not this team's problem. A widespread lack of talent is.

[Lou]

Forget leadership.  Just get on base.

No OBP, no rings.  Say it time and time again until it echoes in your mind because this is all that matters as it pertains to winning baseball games.

Yeah, pitching doesn't matter

[Lou]

Tank

[Guest]

Leadership is only good for sports movies anyways.

[happybat4]

I feel like the 2002 angels had tons of leaders. Really any guy on that team could have been a leader in one way or another.

[NrM]

Leadership is only good for sports movies anyways.

 

And it's something for the media to talk about..

 

Leadership and grit...

Never fails to appeal to the most casual sports fan.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Poozy

[Stradling]

Leadership means quite a bit, however the only time it is talked about is when a team wins it all, or if it has character issues where the perception is with leadership they would have gone much further.

Before you guys (failos, QM and poozy) misunderstand the above sentence, Leadership doesn't replace talent.

In my opinion personal example and self accountability is more important than vocal leadership. However there are times when guys need to be lead (maturity issues, effort issues, playing the game the wrong way), and the most effective leadership is peer leadership.

[NrM]

Leadership means quite a bit, however the only time it is talked about is when a team wins it all, or if it has character issues where the perception is with leadership they would have gone much further.

Before you guys (failos, QM and poozy) misunderstand the above sentence, Leadership doesn't replace talent.

In my opinion personal example and self accountability is more important than vocal leadership. However there are times when guys need to be lead (maturity issues, effort issues, playing the game the wrong way), and the most effective leadership is peer leadership.

 

Yeah but there's no way of knowing if a team or player has those qualities unless you're actually apart of said team.

The media loves to act like they're in the know on certain players.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Poozy

[Stradling]

Yea, I get that poozy, but to say leadership is overstated is false.

[UndertheHalo]

i feel like a good clubhouse is more important then "leadership" what does that mean anyway ? I don't necessarily think its a good thing when you have some "leader" who goes around policing the clubhouse.  It should be a collective thing.  Whats important is that the guys want to show up to play with their team mates.  Hopefully they have some friends among those teammates.  I don't think this is a problem on the Angels.  Agree with the above poster who mentioned that variety of guys set good examples on the team and could be considered "leaders"

[AngelsFanSince86]

Forget leadership.  Just get on base.

No OBP, no rings.  Say it time and time again until it echoes in your mind because this is all that matters as it pertains to winning baseball games.  

 

Only 2 of the top 5 teams in terms of OBP made it to the playoffs.  5 of the playoff teams were from 11-21, Royals being 11th.  In 2014 Giants were 18th in OBP, although 7 of the top 10 teams made the playoffs.  8 of the top 10 in 2013, Boston being 1st.  5 of 10 in 2012, Giants being 8th.  5 of 10 in 2011, the Cards being 3rd.  Take what you will from this.  I wasn't trying to prove a point, but was just curious so I looked it up and shared results. It doesn't take into account that the AL typically has higher OBP and that the Rockies skew results by always being top 10 in OBP because of their park.   

But if you take this at face value it basically says OBP is important, but not necessary.  You must at least be average at getting on base if you want to be successful.  But thats pretty true about every part of the game. 

[Stradling]

i feel like a good clubhouse is more important then "leadership" what does that mean anyway ? I don't necessarily think its a good thing when you have some "leader" who goes around policing the clubhouse. It should be a collective thing. Whats important is that the guys want to show up to play with their team mates. Hopefully they have some friends among those teammates. I don't think this is a problem on the Angels. Agree with the above poster who mentioned that variety of guys set good examples on the team and could be considered "leaders"

Well leadership isn't policing, so I agree.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Leaders are more important than they are made out to be. A lot of it has to do with having someone respected enough by his peers to bridge the gap between player and manager. ANY coach can connect, but not usually with all of rhe players (sometimes not with any). Has to be a guy or guys who have the ability and respect to call orhers out on a more peer level, and hold people accountable

Chemistry is not overrated, regardless of what some believe. Obviously talent is the most important, but a bad clubhouse can kill a ton of motivation. Theres a reason teams like the cards and giants succeed when on paper beasts like the dodgers have come up short. Sometimes its how the ball bounces and is more luck than anything. But the dodgers are a good example of what happens when the clubhouse is split

[UndertheHalo]

Well leadership isn't policing, so I agree.

 

 

im sure Papelbon thinks he's a "leader" 

 

Maybe i didn't express it well.  I just think that this is a pretty subtle thing.  Real leaders probably dont want to be marked out as leaders.

[Stradling]

Why wouldn't real leaders want to be marked as leaders? It isn't some bad thing to be considered. I would say that leaders aren't self appointed leaders.

[UndertheHalo]

maybe that they don't want it is not correct.  More like, they don't care about it.  The recognition that is.  Seems to me that the best leaders do what they do and it stands on its own without validation from others.

[Stradling]

maybe that they don't want it is not correct. More like, they don't care about it. The recognition that is. Seems to me that the best leaders do what they do and it stands on its own without validation from others.

That is where I made the distinction of Personal Example earlier.