Jump to content

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


mikezpen

Recommended Posts

If I may...

I asked a while back on this thread of Mike but I will open it up to the group...I really, honestly like to know...I hear alot of people talk about DT's loyalty to the "older" or "experienced" players and not giving into the new and brought up players...that he doesn't have the "guts" or whatever to do what is needed to bring up new blood...so the question is, for the players in question, is there something contractually that specifies they get so much playing time and that unless they are royally flubbing up out there DT still has to give them "X" amount of playing time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

Exactly. When you like people and have respect for them, you simply dont want to dissapoint them and let them down. This builds an atmosphere and culture of cohesion and picking others up.

The same goes with business. Why are Fortune 500 companies Fortune 500 companies? It goes beyond just smarts and strategy.

Bottom line is when you go to competition, the battlefield, or the boardroom with people who you like and admire, you simply want it more, not only for yourself, but for them as well.

Why can't people see this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may...

I asked a while back on this thread of Mike but I will open it up to the group...I really, honestly like to know...I hear alot of people talk about DT's loyalty to the "older" or "experienced" players and not giving into the new and brought up players...that he doesn't have the "guts" or whatever to do what is needed to bring up new blood...so the question is, for the players in question, is there something contractually that specifies they get so much playing time and that unless they are royally flubbing up out there DT still has to give them "X" amount of playing time?

Not that I know of.

But I will say this. People want to rave about how well DT has run this team and managed this team to perform better than the "experts" predicted. But they don't want to accept the double edged sword that is having the respect of your players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. When you like people and have respect for them, you simply dont want to dissapoint them and let them down. This builds an atmosphere and culture of cohesion and picking others up.

The same goes with business. Why are Fortune 500 companies Fortune 500 companies? It goes beyond just smarts and strategy.

Bottom line is when you go to competition, the battlefield, or the boardroom with people who you like and admire, you simply want it more, not only for yourself, but for them as well.

Why can't people see this?

Hell if I know, it's unbelievable. It's not that it's the only thing that matters. I mean, the O's have had arguably the best "chemistry" in the league this year, but are a last place team. I get that. But their record would be far worse with poor chemistry, I have no doubts about that.

As Starbucks says... it's not about the coffee.

I know it's tough people, try to keep up though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. When you like people and have respect for them, you simply dont want to dissapoint them and let them down. This builds an atmosphere and culture of cohesion and picking others up.

The same goes with business. Why are Fortune 500 companies Fortune 500 companies? It goes beyond just smarts and strategy.

Bottom line is when you go to competition, the battlefield, or the boardroom with people who you like and admire, you simply want it more, not only for yourself, but for them as well.

Why can't people see this?

Same with the Army If I might dare to say so... Band of Brothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think chemistry can be an important part of a team. Obviously the same group of 25 guys who respect each other and work together are more likely to be successful then if the same group of 25 guys don't get along and don't work well together.

However, chemistry doesn't always equal success. The bottom line is, you have to have talent. Ideally, you have both talent and chemistry, but it doesn't always work out that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. When you like people and have respect for them, you simply dont want to dissapoint them and let them down. This builds an atmosphere and culture of cohesion and picking others up.

The same goes with business. Why are Fortune 500 companies Fortune 500 companies? It goes beyond just smarts and strategy.

Bottom line is when you go to competition, the battlefield, or the boardroom with people who you like and admire, you simply want it more, not only for yourself, but for them as well.

Why can't people see this?

I can see it to a point, I just don't think it has near the effect that others do. Especially overriding something like pure talent.

I can hate my job and my coworkers, but if I have any kind of pride and self-respect I will still do the best job that I can. Baseball is the single-most individual of all the team sports, and 90% of the sport is an individual doing something individually, whether it is hitting or pitching or fielding or running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go and say those A's teams hated Finley and used that energy to perform better on the field. Those Yankees teams hated each other and used that energy on the field as well.

But I'm done with this argument as I have a better chance of winning a fight with a brick wall by bashing my head repeatedly against it than I have of convincing B-Terp about chemistry.

Like I said, B-Terp...you're so far already convinced that it doesn't exist that no one or nothing can tell you otherwise. Even all the great athletes out there who'll tell you otherwise can't convince you.

So I'm not going to bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go and say those A's teams hated Finley and used that energy to perform better on the field. Those Yankees teams hated each other and used that energy on the field as well.

But I'm done with this argument as I have a better chance of winning a fight with a brick wall by bashing my head repeatedly against it than I have of convincing B-Terp about chemistry.

Like I said, B-Terp...you're so far already convinced that it doesn't exist that no one or nothing can tell you otherwise. Even all the great athletes out there who'll tell you otherwise can't convince you.

So I'm not going to bother.

So you'll believe these "great athletes" that talk about chemistry in between spouting cliches (apparently with the two NEVER mixing together :P) but not me when I say I'm willing to listen to real evidence.

Whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. When you like people and have respect for them, you simply dont want to dissapoint them and let them down. This builds an atmosphere and culture of cohesion and picking others up.

The same goes with business. Why are Fortune 500 companies Fortune 500 companies? It goes beyond just smarts and strategy.

Bottom line is when you go to competition, the battlefield, or the boardroom with people who you like and admire, you simply want it more, not only for yourself, but for them as well.

Why can't people see this?

Nailed it. I'm convinced almost all men or women with the right bond will fight harder for their fellow man than themself. There is a comradore that can be built that makes you put forth your max effort. When you are playing on a team that is close, respects each other and is truely determined to reach a common goal you focus more and push yourself harder to not let yourself and teammates down. Doesn't always mean your going to win, sometimes the opponent is simply better but you still are there fighting tooth and nail and never giving up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see it to a point, I just don't think it has near the effect that others do. Especially overriding something like pure talent.

I can hate my job and my coworkers, but if I have any kind of pride and self-respect I will still do the best job that I can. Baseball is the single-most individual of all the team sports, and 90% of the sport is an individual doing something individually, whether it is hitting or pitching or fielding or running.

Two things. Nobody here was saying that chemistry will override no talent; The original poster made a statement that chemistry didn't exist, or had no effect at all.

How are you going to get evidence for chemistry working as a whole? The only evidence available is the players themselves. What they say. What they do. For instance, how every player flips the brim after a save. It adds to the win, conveys the sense of them being TRULY happy for winning a game. They're like Micheal Jackson in a nursery; they appreciate the surroundings.

Chemistry ITSELF is not of that much importance; the effect it has on trying harder and playing out every game is immeasurable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'll believe these "great athletes" that talk about chemistry in between spouting cliches (apparently with the two NEVER mixing together :P) but not me when I say I'm willing to listen to real evidence.

Whatever.

It's because there's no evidence, B-Terp! It's just peoples opinions! It's not like there's a magical chemistry vat in each clubhouse that athletes can take shots from before they head out onto the field.

This is exactly what I'm saying....it's not a tangible thing. You're looking for "evidence" like you're on CSI or something and I'm telling you to go look at the top athletes who've done great things in sports and you're telling me that their opinions are full of "cliches" and that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Which is so, so convenient.

And even if there were such a thing as tangible evidence of a team with "chemistry" I'm sure you'd figure out a way to discount it because you're so entrenched in your argument that you wouldn't change your mind if "chemistry" found a way to jump up and sit on your face.

But thanks for proving my first post right. It's not tangible, it's not measurable and it can't be quantified.

Therefore, you'll put it down because it lives in the abstract and you can't get a firm grasp on what it is.

Whatever, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things. Nobody here was saying that chemistry will override no talent; The original poster made a statement that chemistry didn't exist, or had no effect at all.

How are you going to get evidence for chemistry working as a whole? The only evidence available is the players themselves. What they say. What they do. For instance, how every player flips the brim after a save. It adds to the win, conveys the sense of them being TRULY happy for winning a game. They're like Micheal Jackson in a nursery; they appreciate the surroundings.

Chemistry ITSELF is not of that much importance; the effect it has on trying harder and playing out every game is immeasurable.

I think its pretty clear that I'm NOT going to get that evidence :P

People are talking about it having a real effect on the field. That a team with good chemistry is more likely to win than one with bad chemistry (all things being equal, though I don't think that is a requirement for quite a few). Unless you can give some evidence how this is possible, then I cannot understand why someone would just agree with it.

Again, having a nice workplace and coworkers is great. But in an individual team sport like baseball where most of what goes on does not (or only minimally) involve teammates, if it doesn't have an effect on the field then it doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because there's no evidence, B-Terp! It's just peoples opinions! It's not like there's a magical chemistry vat in each clubhouse that athletes can take shots from before they head out onto the field.

This is exactly what I'm saying....it's not a tangible thing. You're looking for "evidence" like you're on CSI or something and I'm telling you to go look at the top athletes who've done great things in sports and you're telling me that their opinions are full of "cliches" and that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Which is so, so convenient.

And even if there were such a thing as tangible evidence of a team with "chemistry" I'm sure you'd figure out a way to discount it because you're so entrenched in your argument that you wouldn't change your mind if "chemistry" found a way to jump up and sit on your face.

But thanks for proving my first post right. It's not tangible, it's not measurable and it can't be quantified.

Therefore, you'll put it down because it lives in the abstract and you can't get a firm grasp on what it is.

Whatever, indeed.

If you want to claim it has an effect, then there has to be evidence. It's that simple.

Someone could claim that aliens are beaming some mind-control device from another planet that is making me come on here and spout crazy, argumentative opinions, and you might agree because you think I'm spouting crazy argumentative opinions. However, until you can find me, give me an aluminum-foil ball cap and see what I say afterward, it is only your opinion unsupported by facts.

Or from a completely different direction...http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

"This team really likes/hates each other. They win/lose. Therefore the fact that they really like/hate each other made them win/lose."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its pretty clear that I'm NOT going to get that evidence :P

People are talking about it having a real effect on the field. That a team with good chemistry is more likely to win than one with bad chemistry (all things being equal, though I don't think that is a requirement for quite a few). Unless you can give some evidence how this is possible, then I cannot understand why someone would just agree with it.

Again, having a nice workplace and coworkers is great. But in an individual team sport like baseball where most of what goes on does not (or only minimally) involve teammates, if it doesn't have an effect on the field then it doesn't matter.

Again, not to dog you, but there is no way you've ever played competitive sports. It's something you have to experience but once the bond that creates this "chemistry" is there you'd most likely believe. That's why the overwhelming majority of pro athletes are going to tell you that there not only is such a thing but it is a major factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...