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

[BaltimoreTerp]

And yet Bill James himself says that chemistry absolutely plays a role in baseball and dishes out heavy criticsm, to say the least, about people that are saying what you're saying.

The problem is, from what I can tell, you're looking at this situation like it's a binary problem. Whenever somebody here is giving you an example of a team that had good chemistry, you turn your head and say "Talent" and don't listen to another word.

The thing of it is, is that, I, like you, trust Bill James's opinion, correct? James's conclusion is that it's tough to define how much effect it has, but that it's pretty much incontrovertible that it absolutely has an effect.

What effect it has, is debatable and I've had that debate many a time over the years, but like I've said, I think it's incredibly hypocritical to call it negligble. You don't like discussing it because you can't quantify it, fine. But then again, like you said, you can't quantify it, so giving it a degree of measurement, of negligble, is self-defeating.

I was bringing up Bill James because of the similarity of the situations; the original reason he and many others were and are shunned and ignored by the baseball establishment is because they "never played the game", and therefore their opinions cannot be viewed on the same level as someone who has, like Joe Morgan for example.

But yeah, thanks for missing the point completely

[J.D.]

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.

What I find really amusing is that as I was posting my comment about how people use the A's teams of the 70s to disprove chemistry, you posted this:

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

and then talk about me putting words in people's mouths. I didn't. All I said was that people like to use one example of teams that hated each other winning (the 70's A's) and use it as empirical evidence that chemistry is negligible. You did just that.

[utvolzac]

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

They didn't just beat All Star teams though, they beat the Rangers, Bruins and Canadiens some of the best NHL teams at the time. They also probably would have beaten the Flyers, had the Flyers not just turned to goonery and started hurting people.

Central Red Army team (National team) wasn't just an all-star team. They we're an actual team that played together all the time, not just once or twice a year. There should be a coaching manual dedicated to Tikhanov for his incompetance during this game. It's really quite legendary when you compare the skill levels of both teams.

I agree that chemistry does matter (although not nearly as much as actual talent). I just feel that it played very little impact when discussing why the US beat the Soviets.

Although I think of all the team sports, chemistry matters the least when it comes to baseball. Only because so much of the game is based off actual individual performances. A great pitcher can sleep with the wives and girlfriends of every one of his teammates, run over the coach's dog and still come out and throw a no hitter to win the game.

[TommyD4207]

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.

Like I said in my previous posts, the A's in the 70's and Billy Martin's Yankees actually had very good intangibles. What they didn't have in getting along, they had in fierce competitiveness. To my knowledge, there has never been a team that lacked focus that ever won the World Series. There's teams that get along very well that are able to remain focused, that's the norm. But there's also a few teams that hated each other and were able to keep their eyes on the prize. Wanting it more than anyone else IS what defines good chemistry, not friendship.

[TommyD4207]

I was bringing up Bill James because of the similarity of the situations; the original reason he and many others were and are shunned and ignored by the baseball establishment is because they "never played the game", and therefore their opinions cannot be viewed on the same level as someone who has, like Joe Morgan for example.

But yeah, thanks for missing the point completely

I know why you were addressing it, I was making a connection. But thanks for the cheesy red herring instead of actually debating the context of the post. Real cute, super coy.

[Sports Guy]

BTW, our "great chemistry"(which btw existed last year as well) has us in last place, 14.5 games out of first and 10 games out of the WC, 6th place in that.

[J.D.]

BTW, our "great chemistry"(which btw existed last year as well) has us in last place, 14.5 games out of first and 10 games out of the WC, 6th place in that.

So clearly it's meaningless. I mean, it's not like it takes a combination of superior talent and chemistry or anything.

FWIW, if our pitching was even in the top 7 in the AL, I'm betting we'd be a LOT closer to the Wild Card than we are right now.

[vab]

BTW, our "great chemistry"(which btw existed last year as well) has us in last place, 14.5 games out of first and 10 games out of the WC, 6th place in that.

And the reason why is because we have no pitching. So let's trade away this lineup that's producing 6, 7, 8 runs a night on a regular basis, put a bunch of prospects in and then, maybe, we'll have a decent pitching staff and no offense. That will be a lot better.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I know why you were addressing it, I was making a connection. But thanks for the cheesy red herring instead of actually debating the context of the post. Real cute, super coy.

Your point had nothing to do with my point, though.

I wasn't bringing up what he has said, but his past situation. Of course, if you don't want to argue that because you cannot, that's fine. I would prefer if you would just let it drop so that someone else can.

[TommyD4207]

Your point had nothing to do with my point, though.

I wasn't bringing up what he has said, but his past situation. Of course, if you don't want to argue that because you cannot, that's fine. I would prefer if you would just let it drop so that someone else can.

Actually, I was addressing the better part of the thread, which is whether chemistry matters or not. I picked out Bill James as an example. Just because he was a part of what you said, doesn't mean I was addressing that at all.

If you don't wanna argue what this thread is about because you're stumped, that's fine. But don't act like I'm unable to grasp what's going on.

I know exactly what's going on, thanks. You made a side-point, and I used him as an example to GO BACK TO WHAT I HAD SAID PREVIOUSLY. And what the rest of this thread was about.

But that's ok, you employed a red herring so we must all automatically change the subject.

[Sports Guy]

So clearly it's meaningless. I mean, it's not like it takes a combination of superior talent and chemistry or anything.

FWIW, if our pitching was even in the top 7 in the AL, I'm betting we'd be a LOT closer to the Wild Card than we are right now.

If you are talking about your post, then yes, you are correct.

I have stated several times that i feel it is important but chemistry doesn;t eclipse talent, what is best of the future of the team or things like that.

Again, get us to the point where we are a good team and then worry about the chemistry...We aren't at the point where chemistry should even be remotely near the top of the list of things we have to have.

[TommyD4207]

BTW, our "great chemistry"(which btw existed last year as well) has us in last place, 14.5 games out of first and 10 games out of the WC, 6th place in that.

And our "great right fielder" has us in last place, 14.5 games out first and 10 games out of the WC, 6th place in that. Clearly Markakis isn't all that important.

[J.D.]

If you are talking about your post, then yes, you are correct.

I have stated several times that i feel it is important but chemistry doesn;t eclipse talent, what is best of the future of the team or things like that.

Again, get us to the point where we are a good team and then worry about the chemistry...We aren't at the point where chemistry should even be remotely near the top of the list of things we have to have.

And if the talent is there on the pitching side, we'd be right at the WC. Especially with the way that the offense is producing.

If you want to pull one flaw from the Orioles this season, it isn't "giving the vets too much playing time." It's, "No one aside from Guthrie throws strikes."

Chemistry isn't as important as talent, but it's important. Right now though, I don't see a lack of talent on the offensive side of things with a few notable exceptions (SS, Payton, Millar sometimes). And yet the people that we all get outraged about are guys like Montanez.

The vets on the offensive side are doing their jobs just fine. Why reward them by taking at bats away?

[Sports Guy]

And if the talent is there on the pitching side, we'd be right at the WC. Especially with the way that the offense is producing.

Which goes back to my point...Talent eclipses everything.

And yet the people that we all get outraged about are guys like Montanez.

There really is no reason for him not to be getting more starts, even if it means DHing him...I am not really worried about this though...DT came out and explained himself and what he said was good enough for me to be honest...although i do think he should be DH'ed more than he is.

The vets on the offensive side are doing their jobs just fine. Why reward them by taking at bats away?

BEcause some of them will not be here next year...They have no purpose on this team in terms of the future...So, why not get a guy like Reimold up here, who has a good chance at being apart of our future and get him the needed at bats as the season goes on?

I don't think I have seen anyone say bench guys like Millar every game. They are saying to take at bats away from them one or 2 games a week and see what these young kids can do.

I am failing to see the issue with this and if those players have an issue with it, then I question just how valuable they are for team chemistry.

[J.D.]

Which goes back to my point...Talent eclipses everything.

There really is no reason for him not to be getting more starts, even if it means DHing him...I am not really worried about this though...DT came out and explained himself and what he said was good enough for me to be honest...although i do think he should be DH'ed more than he is.

BEcause some of them will not be here next year...They have no purpose on this team in terms of the future...So, why not get a guy like Reimold up here, who has a good chance at being apart of our future and get him the needed at bats as the season goes on?

I don't think I have seen anyone say bench guys like Millar every game. They are saying to take at bats away from them one or 2 games a week and see what these young kids can do.

I am failing to see the issue with this and if those players have an issue with it, then I question just how valuable they are for team chemistry.

Okay. So we agree, essentially. Why are we arguing?!?!?!?!?!??!

I honestly think we see Reimold in September anyway. That's why I'm not getting upset yet. I think you see Reimold come up in September, especially if Scott ends up going on the DL (which I'm guessing with his injury will happen eventually... I think it's likely). And I think those guys will get playing time when they come up.

All I'm saying is that, future or not, the vets have earned their playing time. You don't arbitrarily take it away to give guys in AA a shot. But if you're rotating and putting a different guy on the bench each night, I think it could work fine.

Now, whether it works that way remains to be seen. But Trembley has said he's committed to playing Montanez when he feels ready, and I'm going to assume that if Reimold ends up on the team in September, the same will hold true for him. I'll assume that until I'm given reason not to, anyway.