Veteranosity and chemistry: it’s a thing

[foxfield]

7 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

I would love to know how you got that number

It was mostly a joke. But the Orioles are basically on a pace to improve by 24 wins. 
 

I believe cohesiveness of a team is important. I think veteranosity can and is over rated at times.  The 2011 team that set up a nice run from 2012-2016 had great chemistry. The 2018 team that lost 115 games had plenty of veteranosity.  But no chemistry or cohesion. 
 

The bottom line is that good teams have this. But quantifying it is almost impossible and that is what Can of Corn alluded to. 
 

 

[ChosenOne21]

20 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Well, that is the question.  What is veteranosity worth, and who has it and who doesn’t?

Here’s what we can’t quantify: when Cedric Mullins comes up to bat with the game on the line, does the fact that his teammates are lively and encouraging, rather than moribund and nonchalant, make any difference in his at bat?  The outcome of his at bat will be recorded as though it is solely his success or failure, but does the attitude of his teammates affect the outcome?   

You are never going to measure that scientifically.   You can’t prove it right or wrong.  But from my observation, most players absolutely believe it matters.   And while most players aren’t Mensa members, I’m inclined to think that the guys who actually play the game know what affects them.
 

The null hypothesis has to be that the team would win more if we replaced Odor with a .750-.800 OPS player. We know that increasing offensive ability leads to winning more games. Would it actually happen in practice? Likely yes, but these things are never for sure. Still, I'll take the .800 OPS player with an average clubhouse presence over the .600 OPS guy who's great in the clubhouse every time.

Has Cedric Mullins or anyone actually said these things make a difference at the plate? I hear them say they learn things, or it makes the clubhouse more fun, but I don't hear them say team encouragement helps them in the moment. FWIW, when I played little league, I thought my team shouting at me when I was trying to hit was a distraction. There's a reason the defense always yelled, "Hey, batter batter."

This is the sort of thing I hear talking heads on ESPN say, not players. I remember a decade or so ago, these talking heads were always on about how the good players make adjustments when hitting with runners in scoring position and that's where clutchiness comes from. Then, someone had the brilliant idea to actually ask the players if they did anything different when hitting with runners in scoring position and the answers all ranged from "not really" to "no" to "I just try to put a good swing on the ball like always."

[ChosenOne21]

1 minute ago, foxfield said:

It was mostly a joke. But the Orioles are basically on a pace to improve by 24 wins. 
 

I believe cohesiveness of a team is important. I think veteranosity can and is over rated at times.  The 2011 team that set up a nice run from 2012-2016 had great chemistry. The 2018 team that lost 115 games had plenty of veteranosity.  But no chemistry or cohesion. 
 

The bottom line is that good teams have this. But quantifying it is almost impossible and that is what Can of Corn alluded to. 
 

 

Ah, I see. I believe these things can have an impact on a team, but that it's probably more in the 1-3 win range when you account for everything else

[Brooks The Great]

I'm glad the guys get along, but winning breeds chemistry. The winning comes first.

I'm sure the team would be getting along and supportive of each other even if they were 15 games under .500, but none of us would care anywhere near as much about the chemistry and veteranosity - and neither would the OP. Nor should we.

Odor needs to be upgraded at 2B with Jordan Westburg or Terrin Vavra. I'm glad Odor has provided some clutch late-inning hitting and home runs, and he's been a good leader. But he's not a good player. We need to be getting better as a team, and we have young players in the minors that increase our chances of getting better. Let's keep improving the talent level of the team.

[Tony-OH]

Veteranosity and chemistry seem to occur or gets mentioned when teams win. As Drungo point out, there are plenty of examples where veteran ladened teams were bad. It's easy for a clubhouse to be close and love each other when they are winning. Hell, even the Oakland A's of the early to mid-70s who were known to fight each other while winning World Series would still claim to have a great clubhouse.

I expect every player to great about the other players right now. Do I think if Odor was replaced by Vavra or Westburg that the tea would be worse because of a lack of Veternosity? I do not.

This team is playing extraordinarily well right now because they are getting those timely hits and decent pitching. While it's cool that Chirinos was on the top step and Odor gives out that homer chain, I don't think that's the reason this team has been hot. 

 

[SteveA]

I'll note that in the book Astroball, the Astros brought in Carlos Beltran specifically because they felt they needed his veteran leadership.  Now of course his credentials as a ballplayer we're greater than Odor or Chirinos, but the author and the people he interviewed from the Astros for the book made a point of saying that was a REAL factor in the decision to bring him in.

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, waroriole said:

Just because we don’t currently have the ability to measure it doesn’t mean it isn’t quantifiable. 

The literal definition of quantifiable is that it can be measured.

[Daddy-O's]

If it helps any, Oxford has produced a study that shows workers that are happy are 13% more productive.  I know have better days after an Orioles win then I do when they lose.

[DrungoHazewood]

8 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I'll note that in the book Astroball, the Astros brought in Carlos Beltran specifically because they felt they needed his veteran leadership.  Now of course his credentials as a ballplayer we're greater than Odor or Chirinos, but the author and the people he interviewed from the Astros for the book made a point of saying that was a REAL factor in the decision to bring him in.

The Astros signed Beltran to a 1/16 deal at age 40 coming off a season where he was worth 2.1 rWAR.  A reasonable assumption might be that he was going to decline at least half win in 2017. The Astros probably projected him to be approximately a 1-1.5 win player.  At the time a win in free agency was, what, $9M?  So a reasonable estimate of a one-year contract for a 1.5-win player in free agency in 2017 was $13.5M.

From that you could conclude that the Astros were willing to pay $2.5M for Beltran's unquantifiable attributes. Or about what they paid Will Harris, who was 14th on the team in innings pitched.

[waroriole]

9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The literal definition of quantifiable is that it can be measured.

Just because you or I can’t quantify it, doesn’t mean it isn’t quantifiable. 

[Can_of_corn]

14 minutes ago, waroriole said:

Just because you or I can’t quantify it, doesn’t mean it isn’t quantifiable. 

Are you suggesting someone can?

[sportsfan8703]

Adley = Buster Posey

[waroriole]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Are you suggesting someone can?

If not now, it’s possible at some point in the future. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, waroriole said:

 it’s possible at some point in the future. 

At that point it would become quantifiable.

[now]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I have no doubt it's real.  But it's not transferrable.  You can't acquire it.  It can disappear in a moment.  Chirnios and Odor were teammates on both the 2014 and 2018 Rangers, who each won 67 games and fired the manager in mid-season.

The 2002 Orioles were oozing veteranosity.  Jeff Conine had two World Series rings.  Mike Bordick had played in four postseasons. Scott Erickson had led the league in wins and innings and had a World Series ring and played in six postseason series.  Buddy Groom was a 36-year-old veteran of 10 MLB seasons with a 1.60 ERA.  Mike Hargrove had two pennants and was one of the most successful managers of the 1990s.  And that team won 67 games and finished the year 4-32 in one of the great collapses ever.

Buck Showalter managed a 47-win team and a 100-win team.  HOF manager Bill McKechnie managed the 1935 Braves, who had Babe Ruth and still went 38-115.

So enjoy your veteranosity and chemistry, because while it happens it's not by design.

Love this perspective. It's ephemeral and depends so much on context. Take Odor again, as a Yankee. In that city and clubhouse he was probably a nobody (I'm guessing). But on this team he can be a cheerleader and a role model for overachievement in key spots.