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

[mark_beckens]

My love for the team doesn't affect their play on the field in any possible way.

I disagree with that. You don't think they play any different when the yard is full of loud fans then when it is empty and quiet?

[NewMarketSean]

I think a team of 9 Manny Ramirez's and Albert Belle's will beat a team of Kevin Millars and David Ecksteins 9 out of 10 times.

Do I think chemistry is necessary? Yes. But it is nowhere near as important as some people make it out to be.

[Fan4Life]

I think a team of 9 Manny Ramirez's and Albert Belle's will beat a team of Kevin Millars and David Ecksteins 9 out of 10 times.

Do I think chemistry is necessary? Yes. But it is nowhere near as important as some people make it out to be.

But......

Do you think IF Chemistry provides you a 80-82 record (or there abouts) for a team of players many of which have only read about what it means to have a winning season, and many of those players will have insights and opinions as to this city as a place to play and this organization as place to work..

Is better than...

A team with less Chemistry, made of Salazar's, Montanez's, perhaps some tasty prospects brought over in trades for players like Roberts, Hufff or Sherrill, that will more likely lead to something like a 68-94 record and provide yet ANOTHER losing season in a LONG string of losing seasons and have proven ZILCH for all the hustle and effort given by this team this season.

[Dr. FLK]

One argument that I don't like is the "bad teams with chemistry are bad teams." That doesn't at all imply that chemistry doesn't matter. If you have 2 equally talented teams...1 with chemistry and 1 without...who wins more? Maybe chemistry does help. It's not more important than talent, but it sure can't hurt.

[Fan4Life]

One argument that I don't like is the "bad teams with chemistry are bad teams." That doesn't at all imply that chemistry doesn't matter. If you have 2 equally talented teams...1 with chemistry and 1 without...who wins more? Maybe chemistry does help. It's not more important than talent, but it sure can't hurt.

To me, what it boils down to is Motivation to Play. Obviously different guys are motivated differently. Some guys who hate guys on their team may be motivated to excel so as to not be outdone by them. Other players may relish in the support of fellow players and excel because they don't want to let them down. So each case is probably different. But I do know this, if you play on a perennial losing team and have BAD chemistry, your players are waking up the morning of the game and saying, I don't feel like playing baseball today, I wish it was over.

That's not to say that if we traded away some of our popular guys we'd have a team with bad chemistry, but it does underscore to me the value of having a bunch of guys with great chemistry. The motivation to play....

[utvolzac]

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 call B.S. on this one.

The 1980 Hockey team won because Herb Brooks was smart (ballsy) enough to adapt an untraditional style of play that maximized the Soviets weakness. Combined with the Soviet's lack of intensity and extremely under-estimating a bunch of college kids. Oh and because Jim Craig stood on his freakin head.

Had the Soviets not been too stubborn to adapt their style, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about how great Team USA's chemistry was.

Assuming the talent can stay focused, I'll take talent over chemistry anyday.

[Moose Milligan]

I call B.S. on this one.

The 1980 Hockey team won because Herb Brooks was smart (ballsy) enough to adapt an untraditional style of play that maximized the Soviets weakness. Combined with the Soviet's lack of intensity and extremely under-estimating a bunch of college kids. Oh and because Jim Craig stood on his freakin head.

Had the Soviets not been too stubborn to adapt their style, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about how great Team USA's chemistry was.

I'm calling B.S. on this one.

"I don't think we'll ever see something like what we did again," forward Dave Silk said. "One of the overlooked points of Herb Brooks' genius was our team's chemistry. We weren't even the 20 best college hockey players in the country, but we had a team that played well together.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/star02/2002-02-01-reunion.htm#more

Dave Silk > utvolzac

[Fan4Life]

I'm calling B.S. on this one.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/star02/2002-02-01-reunion.htm#more

Dave Silk > utvolzac

Milligan drives to the "post(er)", he Scores!

[BaltimoreTerp]

I'm calling B.S. on this one.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/star02/2002-02-01-reunion.htm#more

Dave Silk > utvolzac

Sure. I mean, guy likes his teammates, they win when they weren't expected to, so the win must relate to the chemistry.

Believe I covered this already...

[utvolzac]

I'm calling B.S. on this one.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/star02/2002-02-01-reunion.htm#more

Dave Silk > utvolzac

I think Dave Silk got hit one too many times in the head if he actually believes that.

If Viktor Tikhonov would have taken his head out of his you know what, Dave Silk would be sitting here talking about how great the chemistry was when they won the Bronze medal.

Of course, I guess it was chemistry that benched one of the greatest goalies in the history of the game in the 2nd period. Or it could have been chemistry that made half the soviet team leave the ice for the final second before the period ran out, allowing for a cheap goal. Or was it chemistry that decide not to pull the soviet's goalie even though the opposing team hadn't even touched the puck for the last 8 minutes and their NHL caliber shooters were peppering Jim Craig non-stop.

But of course if I'm Dave Silk and a career journeyman in the NHL, I'd be touting the team chemistry horn or whatever feel good non-sense that sells books, DVD's and Disney movies.

Team Chemistry is insulting to the genius of Herb Brooks olympic strategy and the idiacy of Viktor Tikhonov. Both of which were by far the two biggest factors in the "Miracle".

[Moose Milligan]

I think Dave Silk got hit one too many times in the head if he actually believes that.

If Viktor Tikhonov would have taken his head out of his you know what, Dave Silk would be sitting here talking about how great the chemistry was when they won the Bronze medal.

Of course, I guess it was chemistry that benched one of the greatest goalies in the history of the game in the 2nd period. Or it could have been chemistry that made half the soviet team leave the ice for the final second before the period ran out, allowing for a cheap goal. Or was it chemistry that decide not to pull the soviet's goalie even though the opposing team hadn't even touched the puck for the last 8 minutes and our NHL caliber shooters were peppering Jim Craig non-stop.

But of course if I'm Dave Silk and a career journeyman in the NHL, I'd be touting the team chemistry horn or whatever feel good non-sense that sells books, DVD's and Disney movies.

Team Chemistry is insulting to the genius of Herb Brooks olympic strategy and the idiacy of Viktor Tikhonov. Both of which were by far the two biggest factors in the "Miracle".

Dave Silk was there. I'll take his word for it before yours.

I'm not saying chemistry is the only thing that made them win, but it sure helped. I'm also not discounting that Herb Brooks was an incredible coach, he obviously was. And I'm not saying the Americans didn't have a little luck there way, because they certainly did.

But if you think chemistry played no part in that whole thing, I've gotta think that's a bit naive, especially when the guys that were actually on the team would tell you otherwise.

I'll even go so far as to quote Dave Silk again, who I'm sure has logged more NHL minutes as a journeyman that you or me and has one more gold medal than either of us:

"When Herb Brooks picked our team, he spent a lot of time getting character references and talking to coaches and people that knew the history of the players he was choosing. So, I think he really, really understood the importance of having good chemistry."

http://deseretnews.com/oly/view/0,3949,70000553,00.html

But I guess he still doesn't know what he's talking about. And I guess Herb Brooks' um...uh...strategy...in picking the team really didn't mean anything at all, did it?

[66-70-83-??]

All good "teams" have good "chemistry".

A collection of great talent doesn't equate to a great team, and will NOT without the chemistry (see 2006 USA dream team).

A collection of good talent can equate to a great "team" with chemistry (see 2000 USA Hockey Team).

Chemistry is every bit as important to a teams success as talent. Speaking of Herb Brooks- he was a big believer in team chemistry. He looked not for the best players, but the right players.

I see some in this thread still are equating friendship or "liking" teammates with chemistry. That is not the case. A team can have a collection of players that hate each other and have great chemistry. Chemistry is strictly a team dynamic- how the players work together as a unit.

Here is yet another article on the subject-

http://www.myarticlearchive.com/articles/7/286.htm

It is titled "Why AllStar Teams Fail". It mentions the 2006 USA team with 12 NBA all-stars that lost to teams without even an NBA player, let alone a star.

[emmett16]

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.

Zing! Well said!

[BaltimoreTerp]

Dave Silk was there. I'll take his word for it before yours.

I'm not saying chemistry is the only thing that made them win, but it sure helped. I'm also not discounting that Herb Brooks was an incredible coach, he obviously was. And I'm not saying the Americans didn't have a little luck there way, because they certainly did.

But if you think chemistry played no part in that whole thing, I've gotta think that's a bit naive, especially when the guys that were actually on the team would tell you otherwise.

I'll even go so far as to quote Dave Silk again, who I'm sure has logged more NHL minutes as a journeyman that you or me and has one more gold medal than either of us:

http://deseretnews.com/oly/view/0,3949,70000553,00.html

But I guess he still doesn't know what he's talking about. And I guess Herb Brooks' um...uh...strategy...in picking the team really didn't mean anything at all, did it?

Why are you so closed-minded to the idea that this could have had much more to do with planning and coaching (especially against a team that had played together for as long as those Soviet teams did and had to have some "chemistry" of their own, right?) then over something intangible, especially when your source is the 22-year-old recollections of a minor player on the team?

[66-70-83-??]

Why are you so closed-minded to the idea that this could have had much more to do with planning and coaching (especially against a team that had played together for as long as those Soviet teams did and had to have some "chemistry" of their own, right?) then over something intangible, especially when your source is the 22-year-old recollections of a minor player on the team?

YOU, of all people, are calling someone else close-minded?

Why can't you take the words of players and coaches who actually played and coached the games?

LOL- you are questioning his *source*?

Where are your "sources" in professional sports that back up your claim that chemistry isn't important?