Veteranosity and chemistry: it’s a thing

[Teddy OBP]

Leadership matters in every organization. It doesn’t always have to be older vets but if they are even reasonably good at their jobs it’s easier for them.  A bit of history to rely on to provide context and professional approach helps - as has been pointed out, winning makes everyone like each other more and seem smarter too.  You’ve got to have some guys good at baseball too.

 

[waroriole]

35 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

At that point it would become quantifiable.

Just because you don’t know how to calculate it doesn’t mean it isn’t quantifiable. 
 

It’s not like the earth was flat in 1491 just because it hadn’t been proven to be round. 

[ChipTait]

Do the 2019 Nationals win the World Series without Gerardo Parra and his 90 OPS+?  I’m not sure, but I’m more a poet than a statistician.  Half of what I love about baseball is the unquantifiable.  

I’ve watched the bottom of the ninth of last night’s game four times.

Let’s Go O’s!

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, waroriole said:

Just because you don’t know how to calculate it doesn’t mean it isn’t quantifiable. 
 

It’s not like the earth was flat in 1491 just because it hadn’t been proven to be round. 

It was proved round in the 3rd century BC.

[sportsfan8703]

Does it make it easier on the team to accept Gunnar now that he is a “phenom”?  He just turned 21. National attention. Yadda Yadda. He’s not just some run of the mill rookie. He’s like adding another AR. 

[Moose Milligan]

It’s always hilarious to me when a team is doing well and some of the popular guys in the dugout are guys whose mere presence offends the armchair GMs. Yes, I’m specifically looking at Odor and @Sports Guy. 

I didn’t want Odor either but it’s clear that his teammates adore him and he’s had a few big moments this season.  Is his attitude and the knowledge he imparts on his teammates quantifiable in the way an .800 OPS is?  No.  And it drives people crazy.

I believe in chemistry, but @DrungoHazewoodfails to differentiate between good chemistry and bad chemistry.  The arguments that some guys on this team were on bad Rangers teams and the 2002 Orioles filled with veterans are silly.

Team building through stats is fun, sure.  But IMO, watching a team like this or the ‘89 team is way more fun.  

 

[webbrick2010]

The biggest impact on the 2022 O's is not veterianocity, it is the impact of a rookie, and that rookie is ....

The WALL

It is the wall that is making a pitching staff that is 27th in the majors in SO's  serviceable.

This staff in last years Camden Yards would be heading for a 95+ losing season.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, webbrick2010 said:

The biggest impact on the 2022 O's is not veterianocity, it is the impact of a rookie, and that rookie is ....

The WALL

It is the wall that is making a pitching staff that is 27th in the majors in SO's  serviceable.

This staff in last years Camden Yards would be heading for a 95+ losing season.

The interesting thing is that our pitchers are way better at home (3.37 ERA) than on the road (4.60), but our hitters are largely indifferent (.684 OPS at home, .680 on the road).   

[Ohfan67]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

The interesting thing is that our pitchers are way better at home (3.37 ERA) than on the road (4.60), but our hitters are largely indifferent (.684 OPS at home, .680 on the road).   

Evidence that the wall was well designed to benefit the Orioles….maybe.

[DrungoHazewood]

18 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I believe in chemistry, but @DrungoHazewoodfails to differentiate between good chemistry and bad chemistry.  The arguments that some guys on this team were on bad Rangers teams and the 2002 Orioles filled with veterans are silly.

My point was that many of the players have been on or are cited as key drivers of good chemistry have also been on terrible teams with bad chemistry.  Of course it's enjoyable to be in a group of friends you gel with.  But it's not something you just pick guys from a list and throw them together and it's magic.

[Frobby]

33 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

My point was that many of the players have been on or are cited as key drivers of good chemistry have also been on terrible teams with bad chemistry.  Of course it's enjoyable to be in a group of friends you gel with.  But it's not something you just pick guys from a list and throw them together and it's magic.

I think this is a completely fair point.  I do think there are players who are known within baseball circles as having good leadership abilities or for other personality attributes and that these things get some consideration when making personnel decisions, along with the more quantifiable factors.   In the case of both Odor and Chirinos, I think it’s likely that their personalities were probably seen as a point in their favor among the other cheap alternatives to plug holes at 2B and C.  But the main factor was they were cheap alternatives.  

[Ohfan67]

Young, talented, energetic players are way more important than "veteranosity". Machado's promotion and subsequent platinum defense, for example, was infinitely more important than the impact of any sub 90 OPS+ veteran. I don't mean to sound too harsh, but there's all this talk of Odor, veteran leadership, and all this other baseball old-timey hogwash meanwhile 25 year old Ryan Mountcastle put up a .959 OPS in June.  There are a number of posts in this thread about the "unquantifiable" veteran effect while seeming to completely ignore the real and very quantifiable reasons that the Orioles had one of their best months in years. It's fun to watch Odor celebration antics and the like, but the guy's OPS was .599 in June. There's a very good chance that Westburg or Gunner would provide at least equal value while gaining important experience. 

[Moose Milligan]

10 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

My point was that many of the players have been on or are cited as key drivers of good chemistry have also been on terrible teams with bad chemistry.  Of course it's enjoyable to be in a group of friends you gel with.  But it's not something you just pick guys from a list and throw them together and it's magic.

And my point to your point is that maybe the bad chemistry guys outweighed the good ones.  Or maybe Odor and Chirinos are different guys now, more willing to take on leadership roles.  Of course, I think Odor has been beloved by practically everyone who isn't a Blue Jays fan after socking Jose Bautista in the jaw but that's beside the point.  

No one said you pick guys from a list and throw them together and it's magic, although that's a 35,000 view of what building a team it is.  Picking guys, throwing them together and sometimes you do, in fact, get magic.   

[Hallas]

13 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

My point was that many of the players have been on or are cited as key drivers of good chemistry have also been on terrible teams with bad chemistry.  Of course it's enjoyable to be in a group of friends you gel with.  But it's not something you just pick guys from a list and throw them together and it's magic.

Are you saying that team building for both non-ahole high-chemistry characters and good performers is not repeatable in the context of major league baseball?  Because the effect of a-holes in the workplace is well studied and many organizations outside of pro sports have made a conscious effort to avoid them.

[DrungoHazewood]

12 hours ago, Hallas said:

Are you saying that team building for both non-ahole high-chemistry characters and good performers is not repeatable in the context of major league baseball?  Because the effect of a-holes in the workplace is well studied and many organizations outside of pro sports have made a conscious effort to avoid them.

I'm saying that it generally doesn't work. And that it's challenging, at best, to design a team for chemistry and character.  

I think most of us would say the 2014 Orioles had good chemistry, but their DH/LFer was a notorious bad-chemistry guy in Delmon Young.  If I were hiring I'd avoid Delmon Youngs, but then sometimes you put that kind of guy in a situation where he's fine.