Jump to content

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


mikezpen

Recommended Posts

To whoever said that chemistry and friendship are not synonomous, they're 100% correct. When someone says that the late 70's early 80's Yankees and 70's A's had bad chemistry, they are completely incorrect. They had spectacular chemistry, they hated each other, sure, but they were also fiercely competitive and would have all killed their own mother in order to win any game.

That's what great chemistry is, the focus on winning. It may be in the form of the 2004 Red Sox, who loved each other and were all pulling for one another to win, or it may be Billy Martin's Yankees that had Reggie Jackson and Lou Pinella all caring about nothing but winning or it may be the 2002 Giants that had Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent that hated each other but they also wanted to win. Actually, in the case of Bonds and Kent, it seemed like they wanted to one-up each other, which can lead to higher productivity.

The main problem I have in these debates is that (in this case BTerp) just assumes that it's negligble, when there's absolutely no proof to either side. Face it, you can't quantify a clubhouse. You can't quantify the competitivity of the team. There's no way of judging, through numbers, any difference.

It's truly a case of "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." In my opinion, an approach in which "You can't draw the line, so we must deal in absolutes" is not the proper course of action in this scenario.

The biggest thing is, I haven't even given my opinion on the effect that all this stuff has. I just think it's disturbing that some (definintely not all) have the audacity to sweep it under the rug and call it negligible when they have zero clue of how to quantify it. It's one thing to say that since you have no way of defining it, you don't want to analyze it, but it's an entirely another thing to call it "minor"

And Mashed Potatoes, I do talk about other stuff besides minor league catchers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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.

Certainly it all depends on the talent. More than anything. It's the balance of talent and team tho, that's makes the truly outstanding teams... stand out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

If you want to claim that it has no effect, you have to have evidence. Works both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Honestly, if chemistry weren't a factor in how a team played, a team like the Yankees wouldn't loose. They have alleged top talent at each position and multiple future hall of famers on the team, but all can't stand eachother, don't respect one another, and don't have any single person to unite around. It would be Jeter, but some go to ARod, userping Jeter's authority.

Also, defining "chemistry" is difficult. It isn't just how players regard one another, but how they respond to their manager. I am a huge fan of how Trembly gets the guys to play with passion and fire on a team that was regarded as one of the worst in baseball at the beginning of the season. I gurantee you that no one mentions the O's in the same sentence with the team down I-95 anymore and teams vying for a playoff spot wouldn't like to play the O's down the stretch. The young players respond very well to players like Millar and Huff and all have bought into a strong team concept under Trembly's guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO... the reason why B-Terp, Sports Guy, crstoner97, mikezpen (etc.) have such a difficult time with *chemistry* is that they see it as an obstacle to the ultimate goal - the total rebuilding of the Oriole team. They believe that the FO/DT is caught up in it and can't see beyond it to stay "on course." They see it as something that has slowed down progress - in their minds eye this *chemistry* is the reason why the team still has Millar at 1st instead of Reimold and Payton in CF instead of ???.

When this goal has been accomplished - I would imagine they would have no problem with *chemistry* if it led to premature winning (the 1989 Orioles) - they would be all for it.

So they have come up with a solution - team *chemistry* does not exist - because if it does not exist you cannot rely on it as a reason to maintain the status quo. And if you no longer can rely on it as a reason to maintain the status quo - it is open season on the FO/DT as to why this team has not made the trades and moves that you believe are necessary to move this team to where you believe it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I ever said that "chemistry" in itself isn't important (although I think its importance is sometimes over stated).I said that the Orioles brand of chemistry, which is based at least in part on a bunch of fat, happy veterans knowing they will play every day regardless of how good they are or what young prospects might need a chance-isn't that important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem is that while the chemistry may be good... The Orioles are still in last place 13 games out & have no chance of getting to the post season.

Keeping guys like Payton, Millar, Mora, & Hernandez in the lineup nearly everyday does the team little good next year. If the Orioles could rid themselves of all of these guys today they probably would.

Chemistry is a good thing .... Is it worth not looking at the younger guys for a team going no where this year. I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the individual players. Some players will perform the same no matter how happy they are or aren't. Some players are affected by their emotions to various degrees.

Having good chemistry means happy players. Happy players means more likely that they'll perform to their best abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never hear of good chemistry on a bad team.

QUOTE]

Gee I wonder why. Could it be there is a bit of a relationship there?

Talent alone can win but it can be difficult to sustain long term (yes, Yankee teams have done it). You win in spite of each other and the whole thing often unravels uneccessarily.

Chemistry without talent can sometimes carry you short distances as well because the sum > parts but is rarely sustainable.

The ideal is to have both talent and chemistry.

Geez am I sounding like Rshack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You do not want to hear it because you can not see it. This club was supposed to lose 100 + games. Last year it was a team, clearly visible IMO that had in many area's a me first attitude. The team has hit the devil out of the ball and remained competitive and around .500 all year. The maases are clearly aggravated that Montanez is not playing as for right now he is the people choice. The feeling must be that he is not a Centerfielder. It has been written in the paper a few times. If he can not field the position, he can not play there. DT is clearly in charge of the team on the field. Yes maybe veterans get a few more privileges but that is true and usually earned on most teams. (ex. The DOdgers have a long hair policy, but notice the crew cut Manny is operating with). If it is not Montanez that has you up in arms, who is it. I sit behind homeplate and have watched closely Payton play CF. He plays deeper than I like but he is not bad. DT manages to win. He wants to win. He puts the guys on the field that give him the best chance to win. Is he wrong for that??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to say from a personal stand point that chemistry does exist in a clubhouse, and it can help.

When I was a junior in high school, my baseball team lost a game were we gave up 6 unearned runs in an inning and lost by 3. The next day we were taking an 8 hour bus trip to Key West to play them in a 2 game series (Friday and Saturday night). We lost both games down there, but we spent every waking moment with each other. Two guys that you wouldn't see hang out with each other outside of our clubhouse would be talking for 30 minutes just to each other while we went to lunch.

We went down to Key West as kids who went to the same high school and played baseball together, but we came back teammates who care about each other. We went on to win 12 straight after that trip, and ended the season standing on Legends Field (the Yankees spring training home) holding the state title.

We also have had to attend two funerals since winning the title only 8 years ago. Everyone has gone off in their own direction after high school, but every time we see each other, everything clicks again. It's like 2000 all over again with the way we are best friends even though we don't see each other often.

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.

They're like Micheal Jackson in a nursery; they appreciate the surroundings.:eek:

AM I the only one who saw that???

PS - I'm not sensing very much in the way of "chemistry" in this thread.:wedge:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, here is another good article describing Team Chemistry (Google is great!) from 2004 for all those interested.

http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2004/07/19/smallb2.html

A few snippets: (keep in mind it is a 2004 article)

During the last two years, what did the Detroit Red Wings, Los Angeles Lakers, New York Yankees and our own Colorado Avalanche have in common?

* They had an abundance of talent.

* Many of their players were household names in their respective sport.

* They significantly changed their team dynamics before and during the season.

* They didn't win a championship.

Name the reigning champions of the four major team sports - football, baseball, basketball and hockey.

Can you? They're the New England Patriots, Florida Marlins, Detroit Pistons and Tampa Bay Lightning.

What do they have in common?

* Their talent can be described as good, but not great.

* It's a challenge to name three players of each team (unless you are from the Sunshine State, Motown or the New England area).

* None were in the upper quartile based on team salary.

* They are proof success isn't based upon the best individual players or how much they're paid.

The 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey squad members chosen by coach Herb Brooks were not the best individual players. Brooks' priority wasn't individual ability, but adaptability, willingness to learn and collaboration. His selection method also included psychological testing.

These techniques resulted in one of the greatest sports upsets ever as the U.S. defeated the Russians in the semifinals and then won the gold-medal game.

The balance of talent and understanding roles are key dynamics to success.

The author also talks about the balance and mix of A, B, C, D players and how they contribute to the performance and chemistry of the team, etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I ever said that "chemistry" in itself isn't important (although I think its importance is sometimes over stated).I said that the Orioles brand of chemistry, which is based at least in part on a bunch of fat, happy veterans knowing they will play every day regardless of how good they are or what young prospects might need a chance-isn't that important.

Since at the beginning of the year we didn't enough ML ready talent in the minors, we went with the "fat, happy veterans". I, myself, have enjoyed the "fat, happy veterans" this year.

Now, it looks like we do have some ML ready players so in Sept call up a few, take a look and start developing next year's team. If in 2009 we are still playing the "fat, happy veterans", I'll be as mad as you seem to be right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...