Hello readers. Welcome to Wednesday.

This particular Wednesday finds us trying something new. New to us at any rate. If it works and you like it we’ll make it a regular thing. If it fails and no one cares then we’ll move on to something else.

Barry and I have been having a bit of a back and forth regarding ‘culture’ in sports and what it takes to make that a winning culture. Drink it in with your eyes and then let your fingers carry on the debate or even give us feedback (good and bad, we want to hear it all).

Without further ado The Bay Area Sports Blog presents [insert clever name here]:

Barry H: In your post about the Sharks/Ducks series, you came back to the idea of a "culture of failure" permeating the Sharks organization. That post got me wondering about what it means to have a winning culture in an organization and how you develop one.

What do you think breeds a culture of winning in any sport?

Ryan C: I think we need to define culture, as it pertains to our discussion first.

Culture -

n.

a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.

c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.

d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.

I bolded the important part for ya'. That really says it all. The attitude and behavior of the team. That's some powerful stuff and I didn't even write it.Breeding a culture of winning starts at the top. The corporate and office leaders. Management and owners. They all have to believe in winning, promote winning and carry themselves as winners no matter what. That trickles down through an organization. It's infectious. Players have to buy into that attitude and carry it through to their play, their locker room attitude and their lives. There can be no doubt, no matter how dire a situation might seem that the guys are winners. Period. That's a good start.

It works the same for the opposite, though as well. Your take?

Barry: To a certain extent, I would agree with you. But the more that I think about the situation, the more I think that we need to redefine our terms. It's not about a culture of winning, in my estimation, as much as it is about a culture of excellence. By the definition offered above, the Sharks do have a culture of winning because day in and day out they win and their point totals during the regular season reflect that.

I think the excellence begins to play into the equation in the post season, because as that point, you’re a winner surrounded by other winners. In the playoffs you need to excel. Certain teams’ posses that culture of excellence; the Patriots (since 2001), Steelers, Spurs, Lakers, Yankees, and Red Wings all have it. It’s not an accident that they are consistent winners.

The Sharks are in a unique position – they have the talent to make the leap into excellence. But, honestly, either way you cut it, with your definition or mine, we’re still back at the same position. How do they take the next step?

My initial thought would be to look to another organization that was in a similar position and look to see how they did it. You?

Ryan: I see your point, but I don't agree. The Sharks don't have a culture of winning because they fail at the end goal. I've said in the past it isn't the journey, it's the destination. The ultimate goal in a hockey season is a Stanley Cup. San Jose fails at that in such a grand fashion every year. Thus I don't think they have a culture of winning. It almost seems like they've just accepted that they'll never get past round 3 and they're ok with it. It's ridiculous.

What's it going to take? I don't have all the answers, but it might take wiping it all out and starting over.

Barry: As I said, I don't think it matters as to how you define it, either as winning or excellence. Ultimately it goes back to the same thing -- abject failure in the postseason.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that really what the Sharks are missing is that one big play, that one break that makes the postseason for them and gives them some momentum. I go back to the Patriots run in 2001, when they had the "tuck" call that basically handed them the game. At that point, they had the momentum to go into the Super Bowl and win it. Winning breeds winning. I can't think of a time in the postseason where the Sharks have gotten that big break. And I know that a counterargument to that is that you create your own luck, but I would argue that the Sharks are doing enough to create their own luck, they just aren't getting any.

I don't think that you blow it up and start it all over. The Sharks are just too good to do that. Plus, you have to think about how it looks to the fans. I honestly think that the best thing to do at this point for the team is for ownership to come out and say that they believe in the team despite the failure, and that they're doing nothing. They have confidence in the team they have put together, the team has confidence in each other, and they're going to win the cup next year.

Ryan: I don't know. The Sharks certainly did have a break in game 5. They had the momentum. They had the drive. Then it all went south. The big players (Patty, Joe, Nabby, et al) are the ones that can change things and they consistently don't. That's a big problem. Sure, one call could make things shift but that isn't enough to go on. Big, highly paid players need to be big, highly paid playmakers. Period.

Ok. Let's pretend the team stays the same next year. Maybe a deadline deal to add that mysterious, elusive 'something'. Then they fail again. What do you do then? How long do you let it continue? I don't think you need to kill it all and involve Norse Gods, but I do think you need to cut out the cancer. That cancer just might be Thornton and Marleau. Their play basically tells the rest of the squad that it's ok to leave you best game at home. It's ok to sleep through things until it's almost too late. That anger and fire has to be there from the word Go and it just hasn't been. Not since the lockout and not really before either.

Barry: They got breaks, every team gets them, but I don't think they got the big break, or enough of those little breaks didn't add up to the big one. And not every team needs them, but I do think that the teams that aren't used to winning in the postseason need them to happen.

I know that you talk about having one of the big guys step up and put the team on their shoulders, but hockey being such the team game that it is, what I saw in game 6 was players trying to do too much on their own. Opportunities are created by playing within a system, and then the players step up and execute. Obviously that didn't happen.

As for how long you let this go, I think you give it one more year, and if it doesn't happen you trade one or two of the big three. I also think that the culture of the team can change through the production of your younger players. We saw what having Torrey on the ice did for the energy level of the Sharks, so maybe having him for a whole season, along with increased production from Clowe, Seto, and others will kind of pass the mantle to a younger generation that hasn't been around long enough to experience all the playoff failures. The one think about good young players is that their energy is infectious.

Ryan: Give me a break. No pun intended. The little breaks are the ones you have to capitalize on. The execution was horrible when those breaks did happen. Look at the PP numbers for San Jose in the post - dismal at best. Every penalty can be looked at as a break and they squandered every one.It is a team game and that's where my biggest problem lies. No way does San Jose win a cup without everyone producing. At the same time it takes leadership to get production and that isn't there. The coaches did what they had to do all year. In the post-season it's purely on the shoulders of the team leaders and that just brings us back to the "Big 3".

Another year? I don't know. I'd move at least one guy right away. Hell, get Marleau out of there and make Pavelski captain. Maybe that would spark some change. The kid steps up when he needs to in the regular season. Maybe that boost of confidence will find its way into the post season.

Barry: I would say though, that clearly the Sharks need that big break to get them some momentum in the playoffs. Penalties help, but they aren't the kind of breaks that I'm talking about. The 5 on 3 the Ducks got is a big break. Penalties are the standard advantages that a team gets during a game. I don't think that we're going to agree on this one.

But regardless, we're getting away from what I think was the original topic, which is what creates a culture of winning. If you're a GM for a major sports team and need to get over the hurdle, and you've determined that you don't have the culture of winning in your organization, what do you do?

Ryan: You look at the players. Look at who isn't performing. The fact that they keep not performing year after year pretty much says that it's ok to be an underachiever. At least that's what it says to me when they're kept around year after year after... you get the point. Move at least one key player and it sends a message - we're done screwing around. Losing isn't acceptable any longer. I really think that would go a long way towards changing the culture around the San Jose locker room.

Barry: I think that's probably a good way to go about it. Without being intimately familiar with the players and the day to day workings of the organization it's hard to figure out exactly how to address the issue.

In terms of the Sharks, moving a big player certainly would send a message. But I think that it's a difficult situation. I can't blame management or coaching, so it has to fall squarely on the player’s shoulders. They were put in a position to succeed and they didn't. I guess I'm coming around more to your way of thinking after all on this.

Ryan: Everyone comes around eventually. I guess I just have that charm. Well, I think we might be beating a dead horse so until next time. Ciao!