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

[TommyD4207]

I am not sure you if you would find anyone on this board that would say chemistry isn't important.

Are you reading what BTerp is saying?

[BaltimoreTerp]

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?

Wait, you mean we should just take the words of people for the SOLE reason that they played?

That's the same argument that suggests people like Bill James don't know what they are talking about because they never played. Do you subscribe to that as well?

Or should we actually try and think these things through instead of simply taking the word of people who could very well be wrong?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Are you reading what BTerp is saying?

I thought the same thing :laughlol:

Of course, I'm trying to get people to think about how "chemistry" could work if it does exist, and taking the opinion that it doesn't until it can be proven to me, which I believe.

[Moose Milligan]

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?

I'm close minded because if you knew anything about the situation, you'd know that Brooks didn't automatically pick the highest ranked hockey players. As its been said, he picked the "right" players.

[TommyD4207]

That's the same argument that suggests people like Bill James don't know what they are talking about because they never played. Do you subscribe to that as well?

And yet Bill James himself says that chemistry absolutely plays a role in baseball and dishes out heavy criticsm, to say the least, about people that are saying what you're saying.

The problem is, from what I can tell, you're looking at this situation like it's a binary problem. Whenever somebody here is giving you an example of a team that had good chemistry, you turn your head and say "Talent" and don't listen to another word.

The thing of it is, is that, I, like you, trust Bill James's opinion, correct? James's conclusion is that it's tough to define how much effect it has, but that it's pretty much incontrovertible that it absolutely has an effect.

What effect it has, is debatable and I've had that debate many a time over the years, but like I've said, I think it's incredibly hypocritical to call it negligble. You don't like discussing it because you can't quantify it, fine. But then again, like you said, you can't quantify it, so giving it a degree of measurement, of negligble, is self-defeating.

[Fan4Life]

And yet Bill James himself says that chemistry absolutely plays a role in baseball and dishes out heavy criticsm, to say the least, about people that are saying what you're saying.

The problem is, from what I can tell, you're looking at this situation like it's a binary problem. Whenever somebody here is giving you an example of a team that had good chemistry, you turn your head and say "Talent" and don't listen to another word.

The thing of it is, is that, I, like you, trust Bill James's opinion, correct? James's conclusion is that it's tough to define how much effect it has, but that it's pretty much incontrovertible that it absolutely has an effect.

What effect it has, is debatable and I've had that debate many a time over the years, but like I've said, I think it's incredibly hypocritical to call it negligble. You don't like discussing it because you can't quantify it, fine. But then again, like you said, you can't quantify it, so giving it a degree of measurement, of negligble, is self-defeating.

Another goal for the home team. Rep for you.

[utvolzac]

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?

That's fair. I don't know if I'd say chemistry, but he was definitely building a team full of character. All of his players fit a certain mold and personality type.

If by chemistry, we're talking about guys who's personality will enable them to be coached up to a certain level and be able to adapt and fit into what the team concept needs to be, then yes, I'd say chemistry did play an important role.

If we're talking about everyone getting along and having a "loose locker room". Then I disagree big time. Team USA was filled with kids from Minnsota and Boston. Huge hockey rivals, even hatred. Fights routinely broke out between the players during scrimmages and practice. For that matter, I don't think many of them had deep effection for Herb Brooks, nor do I think he cared. In order to get them to play the way he needed them to play, he ran them into the ground, mentally and physically. I think they all had respect for each other, but I'd be willing to bet there was not alot of love in the locker room during the exhibitions and games leading up to the olympics.

Still, if you have a team full of talent that is "coachable", then will win 9 out of 10 times against lesser talent that has good "chemistry". Better yet, if you would have taken the Soviets and gave them a real coach, not a general, they'd have waxed the floor with Team USA.

[JimDH]

Wow. Mike posts a rant asking not to hear anything about team chemistry and what does he get? 9 pages of team chemistry arguments.

And even Bill James get dragged into it. The one person who freely admits to know nothing about it. heh.

[osfan83]

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.

I'd rather be a first place team with bad chemistry, than the current last place team we are with good chemistry.

[utvolzac]

I'm close minded because if you knew anything about the situation, you'd know that Brooks didn't automatically pick the highest ranked hockey players. As its been said, he picked the "right" players.

Still, the point being is that Chemistry wasn't what won the game.

Dave Silk or Herb Brooks for that matter can credit chemistry all they want. It still doesn't make it any more legitimate.

If Tikhanov wouldn't have been the "stubborn general" and actually used coaching ability to make adjustments to what Team USA was doing, they would have won easily. Who in their right mind pulls the world's best goalie to go with a back up who's been riding pine for the better part of the year. Or left some of their best players back in Russia because he was afraid they'll try and defect to Canada.

Even with the "right" players, had Tikhinov not done everything possible to lose, talent would have won out. Chemistry or no chemistry.

Team USA won for the same reason that the Soviets beat every NHL team they faced. Because the NHL teams refused to adapt to what the Soviets were doing, too much ego. The Soviets lost to Team USA because Tikhanov had to much pride and ego to actually win the game.

Quotes by Dave Silk about chemistry in this situation mean very little to me. What else is he supposed to say. "We had more talent", "We were a better team", no because he would have looked like a moron. Or "The other team played like idiots", "It was a fluke"? Of course not, that would have put quite the damper on the moment. He gave a cliche quote that fit the storyline and the personality of the team.

[66-70-83-??]

Still, the point being is that Chemistry wasn't what won the game.

Dave Silk or Herb Brooks for that matter can credit chemistry all they want. It still doesn't make it any more legitimate.

If Tikhanov wouldn't have been the "stubborn general" and actually used coaching ability to make adjustments to what Team USA was doing, they would have won easily. Who in their right mind pulls the world's best goalie to go with a back up who's been riding pine for the better part of the year. Or left some of their best players back in Russia because he was afraid they'll try and defect to Canada.

Even with the "right" players, had Tikhinov not done everything possible to lose, talent would have won out. Chemistry or no chemistry.

Team USA won for the same reason that the Soviets beat every NHL team they faced. Because the NHL teams refused to adapt to what the Soviets were doing, too much ego. The Soviets lost to Team USA because Tikhanov had to much pride and ego to actually win the game.

Quotes by Dave Silk about chemistry in this situation mean very little to me. What else is he supposed to say. "We had more talent", "We were a better team", no because he would have looked like a moron. Or "The other team played like idiots", "It was a fluke"? Of course not, that would have put quite the damper on the moment. He gave a cliche quote that fit the storyline and the personality of the team.

The Soviets had a better collection of talent, but the USA Hockey team in 1980 was the better team because of its team chemistry.

You can give a lot of credit to Brooks because it was largely his leadership and motivational abilities that created and maintained it.

[66-70-83-??]

I'd rather be a first place team with bad chemistry, than the current last place team we are with good chemistry.

Once you get a good team chemistry- it isn't permanent. It can be spoiled.

It has to be maintained by the team leadership (manager and/or players who are clubhouse leaders) continuing to do the things that created it: clearly articulated team goals, clearly defined player roles, etc...... that keep all the players on the same page committed to the team goals.

Chemistry doesn't trump talent. Good chemistry can squeeze a lot more out of the talent on hand and help teams overacheive, while bad chemistry can keep teams with good/great talent from acheiving their potential.

[osfan83]

Once you get a good team chemistry- it isn't permanent. It can be spoiled.

It has to be maintained by the team leadership (manager and/or players who are clubhouse leaders) continuing to do the things that created it: clearly articulated team goals, clearly defined player roles, etc...... that keep all the players on the same page committed to the team goals.

Chemistry doesn't trump talent. Good chemistry can squeeze a little more out of the talent on hand and help teams overacheive, while bad chemistry can keep teams with good/great talent from acheiving their potential.

Fixed that

[Boy Howdy]

Fixed that

"Good chemistry can squeeze a little more out of the talent on hand"

This is the line you "fixed".

The thing is, it only takes a little to make a big difference in baseball.

Baseball isn't the NFL, where teams go everywhere from 1-15 to 16-0.

Baseball isn't the NBA where teams go everything from 20-62 to 60-22.

In baseball, you win 54, lose 54 and determine your destiny in the other 54.

Even the worst major league team wins 35-40% of the time, and even the best team is going to lose about 2 out of 5.

How many teams end up watching October baseball on television wishing they had a handful or so of games to do over again?

[66-70-83-??]

Fixed that

Not exactly.

Here is Brett Favre (I know, what does he know:rolleyes:) on the subject as he is being interviewed as a Jet:

Favre understands what he must do.

"You've got to dive into it," he said. "The only way you're going to know these guys and how they play and know the coaches is to be at meetings and to go to practice. That's the way you build chemistry. The most important aspect is chemistry. You can have the best players possible, but it doesn't guarantee wins. Chemistry does that."

Favre pointed to last year's Super Bowl champion Giants as the ultimate example.

"As the chemistry got better," he said, "they got better."

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/ny-spglaub085793335aug08,0,7834516.column