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

[TommyD4207]

My signature says it all:

"It is a very, very different thing to say that leadership, hustle, courage, and self-confidence do not exist or do not play a role on real-world baseball teams. The people who think that way, not to be rude, but they're children. They may be 40-year-old children, they may be 70-year-old children, but their thinking is immature."

[Boy Howdy]

My signature says it all:

"It is a very, very different thing to say that leadership, hustle, courage, and self-confidence do not exist or do not play a role on real-world baseball teams. The people who think that way, not to be rude, but they're children. They may be 40-year-old children, they may be 70-year-old children, but their thinking is immature."

Awesome, dead on, hit the nail on the head...however you want to say it.

I repped you for posting it, and I'd rep Bill for pointing it out if I could.

[Guest rochester]

There is a stat (ive been drinking)

Stat: CHEMS (higher the better)

At bats / age * years in MLB

Payton = 62.8

Montanez = 0

See?

Gee, for a second I thought this was Mikezpen - y'know the drinking thing. Why else would someone sober go into this rant...

[Fairfax Bird]

I don't want to hear it! I'm not interested.

All "chemistry" means is that the veterans on this team are happy because they are playing full-time. The rest won't say anything because they either don't want to get a bad rep or they're people like Bynum who were so lousy they'd kiss the feet of anybody who gives them the 25th spot on a Major League bench.

So, we have a "happy clubhouse"-doesn't mean it's necessarily well-run or that it's being managed in a manner that is conducive to the improvement of this franchise. "Chemistry" simply means that the veterans are real happy-and Trembley lacks either the guts to confront them or the intelligence to take a long view of what's really good for this team.

Good to see your nightly rant when the team is playing so well. Puts everything in perspective.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Here we go again...

People on this board don't like "chemistry" because you can't slap a stat on it. It can't be quantified.

And for a board, that is consumed with WHIPS, DIPS, and potato chips, salaries and numerous hypothetical trades, the notion of chemistry, this thing that cannot be measured by a number, is frustrating.

And therefore, it's dismissed. It's not important.

But if it's important to the players and they believe in it, I'll take their word for it.

The problem isn't that "chemistry" is impossible to quantify. The problem is that people use it as a crutch so they either don't have to analyze things or so that they can explain differences between theory and reality.

In other words, the reason the Orioles are playing above expectations this season isn't improvement by young players or good/career years from older players or better management or even simple luck, but because they like each other.

To paraphrase what I said in the other thread, Nick Markakis isn't having the best year of his young career because Kevin Millar is keeping things loose. He'll still hit even if Millar is benched or traded.

It is also something that almost always corresponds to winning. You never hear of good chemistry on a bad team.

You don't win because you like your teammates. You win because together you outscore the other team while preventing them from scoring runs. It might feel better if you like your teammates, but there have been too many examples over baseball history of teams winning "despite" bad chemistry.

Something doesn't have to be quantifiable to be valid. It just has to be provable. Even in science, you can observe and theorize the potential for something to exist without physically observing it. I've yet to see a single example of "good chemistry" being a realistic reason for the play of a team, good or bad, in my observations and my requests for examples from others.

[Trace21230]

This must be today's rant. Yesterday, it was "I'm not going to the game because Payton is in the lineup", and they win. Hey dude, you missed a good game.

Today, "I don't like chemistry." Need a little bit of cheese to go along with that whine? Grow up or something, because this emotional stuff is a little overboard.

But if you're 12 years old, or in that range, I can understand. If you are an adult, try acting like one.

Are you kidding me? Sounds like a toddler who can't play with his favorite toy. I think someone needs a time-out in the corner. LOL.

[Moose Milligan]

The problem isn't that "chemistry" is impossible to quantify. The problem is that people use it as a crutch so they either don't have to analyze things or so that they can explain differences between theory and reality.

In other words, the reason the Orioles are playing above expectations this season isn't improvement by young players or good/career years from older players or better management or even simple luck, but because they like each other.

To paraphrase what I said in the other thread, Nick Markakis isn't having the best year of his young career because Kevin Millar is keeping things loose. He'll still hit even if Millar is benched or traded.

It is also something that almost always corresponds to winning. You never hear of good chemistry on a bad team.

You don't win because you like your teammates. You win because together you outscore the other team while preventing them from scoring runs. It might feel better if you like your teammates, but there have been too many examples over baseball history of teams winning "despite" bad chemistry.

Something doesn't have to be quantifiable to be valid. It just has to be provable. Even in science, you can observe and theorize the potential for something to exist without physically observing it. I've yet to see a single example of "good chemistry" being a realistic reason for the play of a team, good or bad, in my observations and my requests for examples from others.

2004 Red Sox. 80's Lakers teams. Ravens 2000 defense. Go ahead and check out that movie "Miracle" about the 1980 Olympic hockey team.

I think you'll continue not to see "good chemistry" because you've already made up your mind that it doesn't exist. But go ahead and ask Schilling, Magic Johnson, Ray Lewis and Mike Eruzione and I'm sure they'll tell you otherwise. And would you discount their opinion? Would you really dare to say they don't know what they're talking about?

I don't think that anyone will attribute chemistry as the 100% reason for a team playing well, but I think people will say that it's necessary.

Like I said, it can't be quantified, therefore people on this board like to dismiss it and say it's not important.

And what do you do? You come right in and prove me correct by calling it a "crutch".

Can't wait to see what SG has to say about this. I'm sure he'll say I'm wrong, too

[66-70-83-??]

I've played at a reasonably high level in several sports (D1 Soccer), and in baseball, I would say that chemistry was by far the least important.

Do you think when I went to the plate, I cared about anything other than my approach? Do you think my friendship with the first baseman helped me be in sync with him when I was throwing across the diamond?

I mean, the Yankees are a pretty rigid organization, and they've done a lot of winning.

Then again, I only played High School Baseball, maybe somewhere along the line, chemistry becomes more important.

Chemistry was *by far* the least important?

I doubt that your team was very successful then.

Or maybe we just have a different definition of chemistry, which is a good possibility based on your referring to a friendship with a 1st baseman or that the Yankees are a *pretty rigid organization*. Those aren't examples of what I would call related to chemistry.

Having good team chemistry means that all individuals on the team are cohesive and work together for a common goal(s). Being friends with all 25 people on any team is a longshot. But, you don't have to be friends with a person to work effectively with them.

It (good chemistry) is easier said than done whether the "team" is a baseball team, business group, military unit, or whatever. Good team "chemistry" requires leadership, clearly defined goals and clearly defined roles/expectations of team members.

Of course- winning helps. Unless you are a player with a tremendous ego and really selfish attitude, petty issues and gripes should never seem too important when the team is doing really well. But, isn't that the essence of good team chemistry- putting the team ahead of the individual?

If the team is of championship caliber, it's goal is obvious (winning) and progress easily tracked (standings).

Effective leadership (mgr, players, or mix) with clearly communicated goals and roles seems to be the main ingredients for creating good team chemistry, ESPECIALLY on a bad/young/rebuilding team where the goals are development related and harder to define and quantify progress on a daily basis.

Trembley seems to have done a very good job of maintaining good lines of communication to the players. He also strikes as the kind of guy who is always a *straight shooter* with the players. There hasn't been a lot of complaining. Payton (for one example) has seemed to accept his role as 4th OF/mentor to young OF's since day one. Who would have thought he would have behaved this well?

A team that has terrible team chemistry- how about them Mariners..... Here is an article from before the season questioning their team chemistry and lack of clubhouse leadership.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/miller/309312_mariwinning30.html

[66-70-83-??]

The problem isn't that "chemistry" is impossible to quantify. The problem is that people use it as a crutch so they either don't have to analyze things or so that they can explain differences between theory and reality.

In other words, the reason the Orioles are playing above expectations this season isn't improvement by young players or good/career years from older players or better management or even simple luck, but because they like each other.

To paraphrase what I said in the other thread, Nick Markakis isn't having the best year of his young career because Kevin Millar is keeping things loose. He'll still hit even if Millar is benched or traded.

It is also something that almost always corresponds to winning. You never hear of good chemistry on a bad team.

You don't win because you like your teammates. You win because together you outscore the other team while preventing them from scoring runs. It might feel better if you like your teammates, but there have been too many examples over baseball history of teams winning "despite" bad chemistry.

Something doesn't have to be quantifiable to be valid. It just has to be provable. Even in science, you can observe and theorize the potential for something to exist without physically observing it. I've yet to see a single example of "good chemistry" being a realistic reason for the play of a team, good or bad, in my observations and my requests for examples from others.

Did anyone EVER suggest that Nick is hitting well because of Millar keeping things loose in the clubhouse?

If the answer is yes- post a link. If not- what is your point?

Yes, bad teams can have good chemistry. I guess it depends on what you call a *bad* team.

[BaltimoreTerp]

2004 Red Sox. 80's Lakers teams. Ravens 2000 defense.

Check out the number of great players and good players who could do some things great on those teams.

Go ahead and check out that movie "Miracle" about the 1980 Olympic hockey team.

Same thing, only without the really great players.

I think you'll continue not to see "good chemistry" because you've already made up your mind that it doesn't exist.

I don't think that anyone will attribute chemistry as the 100% reason for a team playing well, but I think people will say that it's necessary.

Ooooh! My turn to post teams!

1972-74 A's

1977-81 Yankees

Plus all of the great intra-team fueds (Ruth/Gehrig, Tinker/Evers) that haven't exactly killed teams.

Like I said, it can't be quantified, therefore people on this board like to dismiss it and say it's not important.

And what do you do? You come right in and prove me correct by calling it a "crutch".

Can't wait to see what SG has to say about this. I'm sure he'll say I'm wrong, too

You didn't read my post all the way through, apparently. Re-read the "science" part again.

Outside of making a weak attempt to pass-off great teams as examples of chemistry, you are dismissing MY view because I actually want to have evidence before making a final decision.

I have not seen that evidence, so I don't see chemistry as a factor. I'm willing to be shown otherwise if you can do so, but based on your close-minded view towards those willing to question baseball mysticism, I doubt you can.

Please prove me wrong. I really do want you to.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Did anyone EVER suggest that Nick is hitting well because of Millar keeping things loose in the clubhouse?

If the answer is yes- post a link. If not- what is your point?

Yes, bad teams can have good chemistry. I guess it depends on what you call a *bad* team.

People are suggesting that chemistry is helping the team do more then they would otherwise.

[GulfBird]

I like this part of your post the best...

:Having good team chemistry means that all individuals on the team are cohesive and work together for a common goal(s). Being friends with all 25 people on any team is a longshot. But, you don't have to be friends with a person to work effectively with them.

An example being Tinker/Evers/Chance. Reportedly these guys disliked each other and I think Tinker and Evers never talked to each other off the field. However, using your definition it is likely the three put aside these differences and made it work towards a common goal.

Does this dismiss there wasn't stats to back this up? Nah, but I am sure intangables played a part

[BaltimoreTerp]

Chemistry was *by far* the least important?

I doubt that your team was very successful then.

Or maybe we just have a different definition of chemistry, which is a good possibility based on your referring to a friendship with a 1st baseman or that the Yankees are a *pretty rigid organization*. Those aren't examples of what I would call related to chemistry.

Having good team chemistry means that all individuals on the team are cohesive and work together for a common goal(s). Being friends with all 25 people on any team is a longshot. But, you don't have to be friends with a person to work effectively with them.

It (good chemistry) is easier said than done whether the "team" is a baseball team, business group, military unit, or whatever. Good team "chemistry" requires leadership, clearly defined goals and clearly defined roles/expectations of team members.

Of course- winning helps. Unless you are a player with a tremendous ego and really selfish attitude, petty issues and gripes should never seem too important when the team is doing really well. But, isn't that the essence of good team chemistry- putting the team ahead of the individual?

If the team is of championship caliber, it's goal is obvious (winning) and progress easily tracked (standings).

Effective leadership (mgr, players, or mix) with clearly communicated goals and roles seems to be the main ingredients for creating good team chemistry, ESPECIALLY on a bad/young/rebuilding team where the goals are development related and harder to define and quantify progress on a daily basis.

Trembley seems to have done a very good job of maintaining good lines of communication to the players. He also strikes as the kind of guy who is always a *straight shooter* with the players. There hasn't been a lot of complaining. Payton (for one example) has seemed to accept his role as 4th OF/mentor to young OF's since day one. Who would have thought he would have behaved this well?

A team that has terrible team chemistry- how about them Mariners..... Here is an article from before the season questioning their team chemistry and lack of clubhouse leadership.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/miller/309312_mariwinning30.html

Gee. A team playing well below expectations has bad chemistry and a team playing well above expectations good chemistry. Who'd have thunk it? :laughlol:

How about an article about a team playing below expectations with good chemistry?

[BaltimoreTerp]

I like this part of your post the best...

An example being Tinker/Evers/Chance. Reportedly these guys disliked each other and I think Tinker and Evers never talked to each other off the field. However, using your definition it is likely the three put aside these differences and made it work towards a common goal.

Does this dismiss there wasn't stats to back this up? Nah, but I am sure intangables played a part

That's my example. Even though they hated each other off the field, they still were very good on the field.

Bad chemistry not affecting the results.

[66-70-83-??]

Check out the number of great players and good players who could do some things great on those teams.

Same thing, only without the really great players.

Ooooh! My turn to post teams!

1972-74 A's

1977-81 Yankees

Plus all of the great intra-team fueds (Ruth/Gehrig, Tinker/Evers) that haven't exactly killed teams.

You didn't read my post all the way through, apparently. Re-read the "science" part again.

Outside of making a weak attempt to pass-off great teams as examples of chemistry, you are dismissing MY view because I actually want to have evidence before making a final decision.

I have not seen that evidence, so I don't see chemistry as a factor. I'm willing to be shown otherwise if you can do so, but based on your close-minded view towards those willing to question baseball mysticism, I doubt you can.

Please prove me wrong. I really do want you to.

Why do people equate friendship with chemistry?

Chemistry is a team dynamic. It has nothing to do with how individuals relate to each other or their individual performances.

It is how they all cohesively work together as a team toward the team goals.