I don't want to hear this "chemistry" crap

[Sports Guy]

Not exactly.

Here is Brett Favre (I know, what does he know:rolleyes:) on the subject as he is being interviewed as a Jet:

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/ny-spglaub085793335aug08,0,7834516.column

Football is entirely different than baseball.

I don't think you can win in football without chemistry....You can in baseball.

[66-70-83-??]

Fwiw, here are some more athletes who believe in chemistry:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080808/SPORTS11/808080422/1004/SPORTS

"With this team, we have such good chemistry," said Sloan, who was an alternate on last year's world championship team. "Everyone works together. All of us have important roles.

"There's no specific role we have. We're all all-arounders; we're all good on each event."

....Bridget Sloan, 2008 TEAM USA Women's Gymnastics

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080801&content_id=3236268&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

"I think it's a great move on [management's] part, not making any moves," reliever J.P. Howell said. "The most important ingredient is chemistry, and that's what we have here."

...Tampa Rays RP JP Howell.

Below is two excerpts, one from the beginning and on from the end of an article by Troy Westwood, a CFL player. I have posted the link for those interested in the rest of the good read.

http://winnipegsun.com/Sports/Columnists/Westwood_Troy/2008/07/14/6157151.html

Team chemistry is a remarkably complex aspect of any team sport.

It is the most sacred intangible aspect of any team. It cannot be bought. It is not chosen. Chemistry takes time to define itself with a team.

Team chemistry is fragile, and can deteriorate quickly.

Team chemistry begins with the head coach.

When a head coach loses the trust and respect of players, and assistant coaches, team chemistry begins to dissolve.

When team chemistry begins to dissolve, you start losing games to teams that on paper you appear to be as good as, or better than.

When team chemistry begins to dissolve, you have trouble being able to understand and pinpoint the reasons for losing.

When team chemistry is gone, a team is left with talented individuals, and a head coach they no longer trust or respect.

[66-70-83-??]

Football is entirely different than baseball.

I don't think you can win in football without chemistry....You can in baseball.

I disagree, because a "team" is a "team" whether it is a baseball, hockey, football, business unit, military unit, etc......

[Sports Guy]

I disagree, because a "team" is a "team" whether it is a baseball, hockey, football, business unit, military unit, etc......

You can disagree if you want but you are completely wrong.

Baseball is different than most sports. You obviously don't need good chemistry to win in baseball since it has happened before.

Now, i do agree that chemistry is important but it is way down the list of things the Orioles need to worry about right now.

[66-70-83-??]

You can disagree if you want but you are completely wrong.

Baseball is different than most sports. You obviously don't need good chemistry to win in baseball since it has happened before.

Now, i do agree that chemistry is important but it is way down the list of things the Orioles need to worry about right now.

LOL

I am not just "wrong". I am completely wrong. (of course it MUST be wrong- it disagrees with your opinion )

What team has won without good chemistry?

Define what team chemistry means to you?

[Boy Howdy]

I'd point chemistry skeptics to the recent Yankees.

After winning 4 World Series in 5 years, they went out and signed Mike Mussina...and lost in the World Series in 2001.

So they went out and signed Jason Giambi...and got bounced in the first riund of the playoffs in 2002.

So they looked to Japan and signed Godzilla -Hideki Matsui- and lost another Series in 2003.

So they traded for A-Rod...and became the biggest chokers in baseball history in 2004.

So they traded for Randy Johnson...and lost in the first round in 2005.

So they signed free agent Johnny Damon...and lost in the first round again in 2006.

So they lured back Roger Clemens again...and failed to survive the first round in 2007.

So they changed managers...and appear likely to miss the playoffs in 2008.

Back when they had Scott Brosius, Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neill, Jeff Nelson , etc...they went 46-15 in poxt-season games from 1996-2000, so I don't want to hear about the October "crapshoot" either...

[Sports Guy]

LOL

I am not just "wrong". I am completely wrong.

What team has won without good chemistry?

Define what team chemistry means to you?

The A's teams of the 70s couldn't stand each other.

Sorry but if you think that team sports such as basketball and especially football are the same as baseball in terms of chemistry, i really question your knowledge on anything here.

I mean, what did they talk about as a big problem for the Ravens a few years back? Divided lockerroom...Things like that...You can't win a team sport where each cog has to work as one if you don't have good chemistry.

In baseball, you don't have to function as a team to win...A pitcher is on the island by themselves(for the most part)...The ball is hit to the SS, he catches the ball and throws the ball by himself.

[J.D.]

LOL

I am not just "wrong". I am completely wrong. (of course it MUST be wrong- it disagrees with your opinion )

What team has won without good chemistry?

Define what team chemistry means to you?

Oh. The A's teams in the mid-70's did it, and so did some of the Reds teams. So now people point to them to deny the importance of chemistry every chance that they get.

[Boy Howdy]

You can disagree if you want but you are completely wrong.

Baseball is different than most sports. You obviously don't need good chemistry to win in baseball since it has happened before.

Now, i do agree that chemistry is important but it is way down the list of things the Orioles need to worry about right now.

If you've ever heard of John Schuerholz, you might find his book interesting.

In it he describes taking over a down-trodden Atlanta Braves franchise and making priority number one creating a winning chemistry from top-to-bottom in the organization. In short, it involved deciding what you wanted to do (i.e. win championships), choose people to lead you there and identify and target people that would commit to getting it done.

A lot of talented people were let go along the way, because they didn't fit in. That's something you can only judge from the inside. No combination of calculators, spreadsheets and subscriptions to baseball prospectus can substitute for it.

Anyone who can't grasp that ought to be forced to recite Tommy's signature until it sinks in.

[Sports Guy]

Oh. The A's teams in the mid-70's did it, and so did some of the Reds teams. So now people point to them to deny the importance of chemistry every chance that they get.

All it shows is you don't have to have great chemistry to win in baseball.

I think that is the only point people make about it but some people like to run with their own conclusions and put words into the mouth's of others to suit their own purposes.

[utvolzac]

The Soviets had a better collection of talent, but the USA Hockey team in 1980 was the better team because of its team chemistry.

You can give a lot of credit to Brooks because it was largely his leadership and motivational abilities that created and maintained it.

I can't tell with these smiles if that was supposed to be sarcastic.

Team USA had a much better coach and game plan. But not even close were they the better team. This was the same Soviet that dominated NHL All Star teams.

The comparison would be a bunch of college kids (not necessarily even the best college kids) .vs. an NHL All Star team. If they played 10 more times, the Soviets beat them 10 in a row after being humiliated by that loss at the Olympics and getting a new coach.

Same way if Michigan got to play Appy State 10 more times after getting humiliated last year. Except Michigan and Appy State's talent levels are alot closer than Team USA .vs. the Soviets.

[66-70-83-??]

Oh. The A's teams in the mid-70's did it, and so did some of the Reds teams. So now people point to them to deny the importance of chemistry every chance that they get.

I guess it comes down to your definition of team chemistry.

If you mean- does everyone "like" each other? Then you are correct.

But, myself, the NCAA coach (whose article I posted earlier in the thread), and other posters in this thread define team chemistry as team mates working together with defined roles and articulated goals,etc......

You don't have to be freinds with all of your teammates. In fact, it is next to impossible to get 25 people together in any walk of life who all like each other.

[utvolzac]

If you've ever heard of John Schuerholz, you might find his book interesting.

In it he describes taking over a down-trodden Atlanta Braves franchise and making priority number one creating a winning chemistry from top-to-bottom in the organization. In short, it involved deciding what you wanted to do (i.e. win championships), choose people to lead you there and identify and target people that would commit to getting it done.

A lot of talented people were let go along the way, because they didn't fit in. That's something you can only judge from the inside. No combination of calculators, spreadsheets and subscriptions to baseball prospectus can substitute for it.

Anyone who can't grasp that ought to be forced to recite Tommy's signature until it sinks in.

They still needed talented players to win championships. You couldn't just cut a bunch Barry Bonds and replace them with Kevin Millars and compete for a championship.

[Boy Howdy]

They still needed talented players to win championships. You couldn't just cut a bunch Barry Bonds and replace them with Kevin Millars and compete for a championship.

Nobody's suggesting that, and it's not realistic.

It's almost as silly as the guy talking about playing 9 Manny Ramirez' against 9 David Eckstein's.

Keeping it in the realm of reality, there are times when what seems to be an "obvious" upgrade (based on OPS, age, whatever) actually isn't an upgrade at all.

Some of us trust the people with actual access to the locker room (after the media is gone) and the dugout to have a better grasp on the situation than some snarky messageboard poster with an attitude (not referring to you utvolzac).

I still think the most profound thing expressed in this thread is the Bill James quote in Tommy's signature. I can't argue it anymore. Whoever doesn't want to see it -- it's their loss.

[66-70-83-??]

I can't tell with these smiles if that was supposed to be sarcastic.

Team USA had a much better coach and game plan. But not even close were they the better team. This was the same Soviet that dominated NHL All Star teams.

The comparison would be a bunch of college kids (not necessarily even the best college kids) .vs. an NHL All Star team. If they played 10 more times, the Soviets beat them 10 in a row after being humiliated by that loss at the Olympics and getting a new coach.

Same way if Michigan got to play Appy State 10 more times after getting humiliated last year. Except Michigan and Appy State's talent levels are alot closer than Team USA .vs. the Soviets.

Exactly!

All Star teams never have any chemistry. :rofl:

Here is an article on that too... It is acutally titled Why All Star Teams Fail!

http://www.myarticlearchive.com/articles/7/286.htm

The article I posted in an earlier post from the CFL player explains it so much better than I can.

If you don't agree with this article that I re-posted below (it really is good) than we just have to agree to disagree.

Chemistry is what makes teams overachieve and do great things.

Of course, the best chemistry in the world isn't going to let my little league team beat the Orioles. Talent does matter. But, chemistry is pretty darn important.

It all starts with the head coach. But, Brooks couldn't do anything to execute the strategies- he didn't skate, pass, shoot, or goaltend.

http://winnipegsun.com/Sports/Columnists/Westwood_Troy/2008/07/14/6157151.html