For years, experts and analysts have praised the Houston Astros administrative culture. As it turns out, it hasn’t always been admirable.
When baseball commissioner Rob Manfred’s office announced the suspensions of now-former Houston Astros general manager Jeff Luhnow and manager A.J. Hinch, it included a somewhat scathing indictment of the organization’s “culture.” Almost specifically, Manfred spanked the Astros for allowing Luhnow’s operations to master baseball details and all but ignore the humans who delivered.
“t is very clear to me,” Manfred began, “that the culture of the baseball operations department, manifesting itself in the way its employees are treated, its relations with other Clubs, and its relations with the media and external stakeholders, has been very problematic.”
"At least in my view, the baseball operations department’s insular culture — one that valued and rewarded results over other considerations, combined with a staff of individuals who often lacked direction or sufficient oversight, led, at least in part, to the Brandon Taubman incident, the Club’s admittedly inappropriate and inaccurate response to that incident, and finally, to an environment that allowed the conduct described in this report to have occurred."
Careful to add that his comments referred only to baseball operations and not to the non-baseball-specific side of the Astros’ administration, Manfred admitted that hammering Luhnow and Hinch for Astrogate was a little simpler than deciding whether and which players should be taken to the proverbial woodshed—because too many were in it up to their necks:
"It is difficult because virtually all of the Astros’ players had some involvement or knowledge of the scheme, and I am not in a position based on the investigative record to determine with any degree of certainty every player who should be held accountable, or their relative degree of culpability. It is impractical given the large number of players involved, and the fact that many of those players now play for other Clubs."
It’s a foolish errand to try arguing results uber alles, but it doesn’t stop people from trying, anyway. Partisans of particular presidents, for example, defend their mischief or their constitutional bypasses and ignorances by pointing to “results.” Arguing that there are times when the rules should step to one side momentarily on behalf of a genuine better good is one thing, but arguing that the rules should stay aside for the better good—whether a particular public policy or a pennant race—is something else entirely. Far worse than off-the-field, against-the-rules electronic sign-stealing in baseball has been justified by results-uber-alles.