Oriole’s Chemistry; A strategic and quantifiable advantage?

[emmett16]

You keep hearing the stories; good guys, that work hard, get along and are easy to root for.  Going on quite a while now you’d be hard pressed to hear anything negative about the character and make up of the players, coaches, trainers, analysts, and FO.  Everyone is seemingly on the same page pushing in the same direction and it feels infectious.   I’ve heard it said on this board  that “team chemistry is not quantifiable and therefore not really important.”    I’ve always thought that was a short sited take, but had never come across any concrete research.  That was until I started reading “The Only Rule Is It Has To Work”   The book points to research done by Katerina Bezrukova who claims team chemistry is, in fact, quantifiable and can be worth as much as a 4 win swing per season.   Maybe there is a little more that meets the eye when it comes to some transactions and acquisitions that have been made, and not made, the last few years? 
 

http://blog.philbirnbaum.com/2014/03/espn-on-clubhouse-chemistry.html?m=1

 

https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083763.pdf

 

https://medium.com/@worville/team-chemistry-is-not-invisible-8b7863839fd3

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/team-spirit/201301/uptons-faultlines-and-team-chemistry

Edited March 9 by emmett16

[Satyr3206]

10 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

You keep hearing the stories; good guys, that work hard, get along and are easy to root for.  Going on quite a while now you’d be hard pressed to hear anything negative about the character and make up of the players, coaches, trainers, analysts, and FO.  Everyone is seemingly on the same page pushing in the same direction and it feels infectious.   I’ve heard it said on this board  that “team chemistry is not quantifiable and therefore not really important.”    I’ve always thought that was a short sited take, but had never come across any concrete research.  That was until I started reading “The Only Rule Is It Has To Work”   The book points to research done by Katerina Bezrukova who claims team chemistry is, in fact, quantifiable and can be worth as much as 3 wins per season.   Maybe there is a little more that meets the eye when it comes to some transactions and acquisitions that have been made, and not made, the last few years? 
 

http://blog.philbirnbaum.com/2014/03/espn-on-clubhouse-chemistry.html?m=1

 

https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083763.pdf

 

https://medium.com/@worville/team-chemistry-is-not-invisible-8b7863839fd3

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/team-spirit/201301/uptons-faultlines-and-team-chemistry

That looks very interesting. I will read them tomorrow when I feel better. Thanks for posting the links.

[foxfield]

I think it matters but has always seemed hard to quantify. Look forward to reading this as well. Thanks. 

[dystopia]

Real and strategic but not quantifiable and that’s ok. 

[Billy F-Face3]

These guys literally live and room together. It makes it alot easier to practice and play baseball when you like the people you're with 24/7 for 9 months of the year and it's a positive environment for you.

[drjohnnyfever1]

I'm a big believer that team chemistry is the hidden advantage with some teams.  This should be an interesting discussion. 

[emmett16]

7 hours ago, Billy F-Face3 said:

These guys literally live and room together. It makes it alot easier to practice and play baseball when you like the people you're with 24/7 for 9 months of the year and it's a positive environment for you.

I think a lot of it is how players with different temperaments/make-up but within the same sub-group (religion, culture, social-economic level, similar background, similar regional home)can even each other out and self police.  And also how people with similar temperaments/make-up from different sub-groups can bridge the gaps between those differences.  I just find it fascinating that there is a quantitative and strategic process to build a team that will net wins outside of the lines and that adhering to that process could be similar to picking up a 4 WAR player.  From the reading I’ve done, it looks like there isn’t just one recipe for success but many ways to do it.  

[Orioles West]

15 hours ago, foxfield said:

I think it matters but has always seemed hard to quantify. Look forward to reading this as well. Thanks. 

Agreed. I think the old school vibe about team chemistry has something to it — but so hard to give it WAR value.

[emmett16]

16 hours ago, dystopia said:

Real and strategic but not quantifiable and that’s ok. 

It might be more so than you think.  The teams have psych evals on the players, do behavior testing, and have the players using wearables to track their sleep and eating habits.  The teams have a very in depth read into what makes these players tick and how they react and behave/control themselves in various situations.   I think with a wide set of empirical data they can predict future outcomes fairly accurately.  

[forphase1]

I'll be the contrary one here.  I think things like chemistry and veteranosity is over blown.   Do you REALLY hit the ball better because your buddy is on deck?  Or did you just barely miss that homerun because you really didn't like the guy on second base and didn't want to drive him in?  Or I could throw harder and more accurately if I only liked the catcher a bit more?  

Now if you are talking trust,  that's more a function  of talent.  For example, a pitcher may be willing to bury a ball in the dirt, knowing their catcher will block it,  and therefore be more willing to throw certain pitches.   But that's a process of the talent of the catcher,  not because they are good friends or Lego building buddies.  Same for DP combinations and throws to 1st, etc.

In general sure,  we all like a better, more enjoyable work environment.  And that can be a factor in signing free agents in some cases,  though of course $$$ is the key factor.   But as far as actually having a real positive impact on WAR or performance I believe the impact to be negligible.  Winning cures most issues, while losing magnifies them.  

Again,  I enjoy the stories about them all being buddies,  all the homerun hose stuff,  etc.  It's great to see them growing up together, developing friendships and bonds, etc.  But I question the onfield impact of any of that positivity, if any. 

[emmett16]

1 hour ago, forphase1 said:

I'll be the contrary one here.  I think things like chemistry and veteranosity is over blown.   Do you REALLY hit the ball better because your buddy is on deck?  Or did you just barely miss that homerun because you really didn't like the guy on second base and didn't want to drive him in?  Or I could throw harder and more accurately if I only liked the catcher a bit more?  

Now if you are talking trust,  that's more a function  of talent.  For example, a pitcher may be willing to bury a ball in the dirt, knowing their catcher will block it,  and therefore be more willing to throw certain pitches.   But that's a process of the talent of the catcher,  not because they are good friends or Lego building buddies.  Same for DP combinations and throws to 1st, etc.

In general sure,  we all like a better, more enjoyable work environment.  And that can be a factor in signing free agents in some cases,  though of course $$$ is the key factor.   But as far as actually having a real positive impact on WAR or performance I believe the impact to be negligible.  Winning cures most issues, while losing magnifies them.  

Again,  I enjoy the stories about them all being buddies,  all the homerun hose stuff,  etc.  It's great to see them growing up together, developing friendships and bonds, etc.  But I question the onfield impact of any of that positivity, if any. 

Did you read the links posted? 
 

it’s more about playing in the margins. You have to get ~4100 outs every season.  If someone isn’t pulling their weight for whatever reason and the team is “off” or playing a little stressed  say 3% of the time, that’s 123 outs at play.  Think about everything that can happen in that time span.  

Edited March 9 by emmett16

[forphase1]

10 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

Did you read the links posted? 

I did.   But just like clutch, which I also don't buy into,  just because we can pretend to measure something don't necessarily mean it exists, or if it does exist that we can actually or accurately measure it.   

[dystopia]

6 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

I did.   But just like clutch, which I also don't buy into,  just because we can pretend to measure something don't necessarily mean it exists, or if it does exist that we can actually or accurately measure it.   

And just because you can’t measure something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 

[emmett16]

24 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

I did.   But just like clutch, which I also don't buy into,  just because we can pretend to measure something don't necessarily mean it exists, or if it does exist that we can actually or accurately measure it.   

I think it’s very likely the reason why some teams overachieve, the team with seemingly an abundance of talent sometimes flounder, and why some teams end up winning a ton of 1 run games.  In a season with 162 games it only takes the slightest lack of drive and focus to make a big impact.  With years of data and teams (of all types) to study, it doesn’t seem to me that it could not be quantifiable. And, it seems short sited when building an org that you wouldn’t at least try and continue to adjust your model. 
 

I also don’t think clutch is a thing.  

[drjohnnyfever1]

Interesting reads.  Main takeaway - Teams that lack or minimize faultlines perform slightly better than teams where faultlines exist or fail to minimize them.  Yet, a +3 game differential seems a little silly to think about, though I still think it plays a substantially more important role than +3 - though I have no measured way to prove it. lol

Personally, I think it still boils down to nothing more than the "sniff test" or a "feeling."  The articles all seem to agree that common goals, sense of belonging, etc. lead to better job satisfaction and performance.  I think that's true.

And I do believe in clutch.... see Kirk Gibson.

ps - I enjoy Ancient Aliens and Curse of Oak Island on History Channel too. Feel free to call me a crackpot.