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

[sbf77]

Team chemistry can become a big factor at this time of the season with teams who are approaching elimination form the wild card. We all have seen some of the O's final months in the past 10 years where they implode. I would venture to say that the team chemistry was not very good on some of thosae teams. I like the team chemistry of the O's at the moment since they fight until the end of the game and seem to get along with each other. Also I believe that Millar had a big hand in the "Us against the World" mentality of this team this year. Only Yankee fans would say that chemistry is not a factor with some of their sucessful seasons with turmoil.

[66-70-83-??]

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?

Did you read the date of the article?

I didn't think so.

It was printed before the Mariners collapsed.

[GulfBird]

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.

Ahhh..true...bad "chemistry" didn't affect their play on the field but using 66-70-83's definition of "chemistry" they put aside their feelings for a common goal (as you stated in other terms in your first post)...but I guess what we have said is that both sides of this issue agree there is "chemistry" we just don't agree on it's significance and cause and effect...

Maybe it comes to what is considered "chemistry"...

[BaltimoreTerp]

Team chemistry can become a big factor at this time of the season with teams who are approaching elimination form the wild card. We all have seen some of the O's final months in the past 10 years where they implode. I would venture to say that the team chemistry was not very good on some of thosae teams. I like the team chemistry of the O's at the moment since they fight until the end of the game and seem to get along with each other. Also I believe that Millar had a big hand in the "Us against the World" mentality of this team this year. Only Yankee fans would say that chemistry is not a factor with some of their sucessful seasons with turmoil.

Wait, you mean the most successful team in the history of team sports never has to fall back on things like chemistry? Man, that must be a terrible thing for them to actually have results on the field instead of hoping for mystical ideas to come save their team.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Ahhh..true...bad "chemistry" didn't affect their play on the field but using 66-70-83's definition of "chemistry" they put aside their feelings for a common goal (as you stated in other terms in your first post)...but I guess what we have said is that both sides of this issue agree there is "chemistry" we just don't agree on it's significance and cause and effect...

Maybe it comes to what is considered "chemistry"...

I just see baseball as people with talent playing people with talent, and sometimes the better talent wins while other times the better talent loses. You don't have to bring in things like how well the players like each other to do that.

Really, a lot of what is being mentioned here, like everyone buying into a common goal, I would term more as strategy. You don't want someone either actively or inactively doing the opposite. But that is more about having a sound plan, someone to communicate the plan and people to carry out the plan then vague ideas of people liking each other.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Did you read the date of the article?

I didn't think so.

It was printed before the Mariners collapsed.

If you can't find what I asked for that's fine. Just let me know.

And again in their case, you have a team that overachieved one year falling back to Earth, and through bad luck and bad performances continuing through the Earth to rock bottom.

It isn't chemistry. It's bad planning of the team combined with bad luck.

[mikezpen]

I recall the game years ago when Davey Johnson brought in Manny Alexander to play short and moved Ripken to third. It didn't matter that Ripken was some sort of god, and it didn't matter that Manny Alexander never mattered to a hill of beans.He was the manager, and he wanted to make the move to see how Alexander handled it.So he did.

Johnson had the weight and the reputation to tell a legend he had to move over. I always appreciated that.

The recent Orioles managers have been lightweights-all of them. They've had no track record and no reputation. Hargrove wasn't a lightweight, but he was blindly wedded to veteran players, and young ones rarely got a chance unless there was no choice.

Every year we have the same dance. People want to see the young players and we have the same tiresome collection of overripe veterans who have led us to our latest disaster of a season out there every night. The veterans run the Orioles clubhouse, not the managers,and that's the way it is.

I tell you, it's a good thing they tried Guthrie and didn't bring in another Rick Helling...don't you think?

[Boy Howdy]

If you can't find what I asked for that's fine. Just let me know.

And again in their case, you have a team that overachieved one year falling back to Earth, and through bad luck and bad performances continuing through the Earth to rock bottom.

It isn't chemistry. It's bad planning of the team combined with bad luck.

Well in an article from today, Carlos Silva --who actually plays for the Mariners (but what does he know? )--seems to think it's deeper than that:

"Maybe half of the team wants to do the best they can ... I can talk about the starting rotation, we want to do our best every time we cross that line, you know?" he said. "But maybe half of the team doesn't have that mentality. They only think to finish strong and to put up the numbers. That's great, but that affects us. As a team, that doesn't work out.

"Maybe instead of moving a runner, they want to get a base hit just because of the numbers. Instead of to get a ground ball, maybe I want to strike him out because of my numbers, you know what I mean? That's what we're doing right now."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/374313_mari09.html

[66-70-83-??]

I just see baseball as people with talent playing people with talent, and sometimes the better talent wins while other times the better talent loses. You don't have to bring in things like how well the players like each other to do that.

Really, a lot of what is being mentioned here, like everyone buying into a common goal, I would term more as strategy. You don't want someone either actively or inactively doing the opposite. But that is more about having a sound plan, someone to communicate the plan and people to carry out the plan then vague ideas of people liking each other.

Huh?

You are the one who keeps bringing it up?

That is how you define team chemistry, not the others in this thread.

[GulfBird]

Really, a lot of what is being mentioned here, like everyone buying into a common goal, I would term more as strategy. You don't want someone either actively or inactively doing the opposite. .

LOL...come on now friend...you used the words "bad chemisty" when referring to Tinker, Evers, Chance...

I don't want to make you a believer in chemistry as much as I don't think you can convince me that every action is the result of something that can be statisically proven...

I like your quote above, but I would say the strategy IS the common goal, to win. You still have to get people to buy into it...

[scOtt]

I just see baseball as people with talent playing people with talent, and sometimes the better talent wins while other times the better talent loses. You don't have to bring in things like how well the players like each other to do that.

Really, a lot of what is being mentioned here, like everyone buying into a common goal, I would term more as strategy. You don't want someone either actively or inactively doing the opposite. But that is more about having a sound plan, someone to communicate the plan and people to carry out the plan then vague ideas of people liking each other.

We're all not so far apart then. That is all we see chemistry doing. Like guys lining up at the video screens... "How can I play better?"

EDIT: Tinker and Ever and Chance couldn't stand each other. Forget which, but the SS and 2Bman didn't say a word to each other for like 7 years.

[Mark Carver]

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

With tomorrow being Sunday, I'm hoping for another rant...

[66-70-83-??]

If you can't find what I asked for that's fine. Just let me know.

And again in their case, you have a team that overachieved one year falling back to Earth, and through bad luck and bad performances continuing through the Earth to rock bottom.

It isn't chemistry. It's bad planning of the team combined with bad luck.

The point of posting that article from March 2007 was just because it was about the subject of the thread. It is interesting to read about a beat writer questioning his team's chemistry and leadership on the eve of Opening Day.

Here is another article written by a NCAA baseball coach on team chemistry

http://www.baseballnews.com/features/teamchemistry.htm

Here is how he defines Team Chemistry:

What Is Team Chemistry?

As I mentioned before, team chemistry, or team cohesion, can be defined as a group dynamic that occurs when members of the team work together and make a united effort to accomplish the goals and objectives of the collective whole.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Ok, since we seem to be closer then I thought, let me ask this.

How does one (or a couple) players have such a positive effect on this chemistry that it overrides negative effects like bad performance or blocking players that are going to help in the future?

Is Kevin Millar the thing that gets all the players to buy into the plan? Will he suddenly quit buying into the team concept if he's benched, and if so why do we even want him around NOW?

[The Rick]

People who downplay team chemistry clearly don't know a thing about the game.

BTerp stated in another thread, "What about teams who won, who have had bad chemistry?" Well sure, a ton of talent can override poor chemistry. What's your point? It's really not nearly as complicated as people try to make it.

Bottom line is that a team with good chemistry will try harder than a team with poor chemistry.

So to the opening poster... you don't want to hear it?

Then you need to stop watching sports.