Isn’t Eric Wedge supposed to be the “clubhouse leader?”

I would argue that Varitek, Jeter, and almost anybody above the age of 35 are considered to be clubhouse leaders, although they are way over the hill in terms of ability. And Jason Bartlett was considered a clubhouse leader of the Rays despite not being that great a player.
Not that I have any idea of what a clubhouse leader is, but I don’t think they necessarily have to be playing well at the moment.

Lewis: I guess I’d ask why they came to be considered clubhouse leaders in the first place.  If it was something specifically they did, cool, I want to hear it (and it’s the kind of thing I’d like to hear from Wedge or the writer in this story).  If it’s just because they happened to be the best or among the team’s best players at a time when they won a championship, well, that’s less satisfying.

Millar: I saw a story this morning in which he was being called a leader on the Blue Jays.  He’s also playing well on the Blue Jays and they’re winning, and when he was considered a leader for the Sox he was playing well there too.  Why didn’t anyone talk about him as a leader when he was playing for Baltimore?

To be clear: I’m not saying that there is no such thing as a clubhouse leader. I’m sure they exist. I’m just not certain that Wedge’s exhortations for one aren’t really a means of deflecting blame for a slow start from a team that was supposed to be doing better.

AFAIK, he was hailed in Baltimore for healing a fractured ballclub.

I’d argue that this phenomenon does have some validity in basketball and football, two sports with more physical intensity and immediate emotional expression than baseball.  It has appeared over the last two years, for example, that certain Boston Celtics players have been afraid of KG “going unstable” on them in the event that they loaf or play lazy defense.  From top-to-bottom they don’t have a roster filled with well-regarded defensive specialists, and yet their defensive performance has been excellent. Have KG’s 1.3 blks/game during that period been so valuable, or has Doc’s coaching prowess been so impactful, that we can simply discount the leadership principle in *this* instance?

It’s hard to make a similar case for baseball, though ...

Tought problem to really parse apart from winning.  If the team is doing well, everyone is happy and collegial.  When the team isn’t doing well, someone needs to step up or Wille Mays Hayes and Charlie Sheen might start fighting (too late on the Major League reference, I see).  Kind of a causality problem.  I don’t think the search for someone who can lead by example (which isn’t necessarily something a Manager can do, since he’s not playing) is anything to laugh at, though. 

The Padres enjoy having Brian Giles in their clubhouse…Giles is hitting .190 or something atrocious.  The awful hitting Padres, with an underacheiving (and a half) Jake Peavy, are 10-9: about 9 games better than most would have predicted if they knew Peavy’s ERA would be above 6.  Of course, the cause-effect isn’t realistic conclusion here, and it’s a small sample size.  But assuming moral and player to player leadership has no impact on team success is a mistake, in my opinion.  Of course, when you get more than one guy trying to be a leader, you might see some clashing going on.  So who knows what the best ‘team makeup’ really is.

Scrappy McScrapperson (TM, Keith Law).
Base ball club “Leader” defined:
1) anyone with dirt on his uniform (on backside bonus)
2) anyone less talented than my 8 year old niece, but “hustles”
3) anyone who sees the most strikes for all ABs per season (see Scrappy McScrapperson, TM)
4) Cap’n Jetes

It’s the only explanation for Jason Kendall.  That said, Craig, I’d also LOVE to have some specific examples of things these guys do that fall under the heading of leadership.  “Playing the right way” doesn’t really cut it.  Taking early fielding practice?  Watching video after a loss instead of going to a bar?  Beating up a water cooler?  Knocking down a batter?  Bueller….?

I’d add a third option to your list, Craig:

c) the player’s on-field production is so bad that the team needs to justify his position on the roster (or in the starting lineup).

Tony Clark of the D-Backs falls into this category. He’s been so frustrating for fans, that the TV team regularly reminds us of his value as a “veteran presence” in the clubhouse.

It goes like this:

Play-by-play announcer: “Here’s clean-up hitter Tony Clark. He struck out in the first and grounded into an inning-ending double play in the fourth…but he brings so much more to this team than just his batting average.”

Color-commentator: “That’s right. He’s almost like a player/coach. Such a great example for these young players.”

Play-by-play: “Shallow pop-fly…and Tony Clark is erased. At the end of seven, it’s Giants 2, D-Backs 0. We’ll be right back.”

Quite a few “fire Wedge” posters @cleveland.com.  I’ve posted this before. I’m a Tribe fan living in AZ.  I get the D’backs games.  Last season, the d’backs were in Milwaukee.  One of the announcers asked Ted Simmons about the team leader.  Simmons pointed to manager, Ned Yost stating, “he’s the team leader.  Players have enough problems playing the game, dealing with media, etc.”

A week or two later, the same announcer questioned d’backs manager, Bob Melvin about the rough patch the d’backs were going through.  Melvin responded, “it’s on me.  I’m the manager—-It’s my fault.” 

30-40 years ago, you heard stories about kangaroo courts in the Baltimore clubhouse.  Frank Robinson was the judge.  Some aspects of those playing the game has changed.