The almighty "chemistry"...
- Fan_In_NY
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 5184
- Joined: April 18 06, 7:22 pm
- Location: Birthplace of Baseball- Hoboken, NJ
Going back on my point on the Mets and Cards chemistry... I think looking at the discussion I took Chemistry to equal energy. Since it is tough to see how a team behaves in a clubhouse, its tough to see how players really feel about each other. The only eyes in a clubhouse is through a beat writers, and honestly as we have seen with Bernie, they are all primarily agenda driven. In NY all of the rag magazines (Post, Daily News, Newsday) all try to stir up trouble and find problems between players. There was very little about the Mets negatively. (One of the incidents was with Lastings Milledge who after getting called up spurned a few veterans before his wings were clipped and he was reeled in). Day in and day out I saw the Mets play with energy despite breaking out to a huge lead. They fought back in many games and just showed a ton of effort.
I sat in on many nights watching the Cards on Extra Innings and saw them look lifeless in blowing late leads, failing to come back against terrible opponents throughout the bulk of the season. It just seemed like the team didnt have the spunk that it did in other years. Not knowing what really goes on in the clubhouse, I took that as not the greatest chemistry.
That said starting with the next to last game of the season, the Cardinals all of a sudden started playing with desire and enthusiasm with their back against the wall, and appeared to carry that energy throughout the season.
My whole point was that watching the 2 teams the Mets seemed to have had more on the field and in the dugout energy throught the entire season than the Cardinals did. I view that as chemistry because I see players truely excited to play, and excited for one anothers success. Obviously clubhouse chemistry I have no idea. I have no idea who goes to the bars with one another, who sits alone on the team plane or anything like that.
I sat in on many nights watching the Cards on Extra Innings and saw them look lifeless in blowing late leads, failing to come back against terrible opponents throughout the bulk of the season. It just seemed like the team didnt have the spunk that it did in other years. Not knowing what really goes on in the clubhouse, I took that as not the greatest chemistry.
That said starting with the next to last game of the season, the Cardinals all of a sudden started playing with desire and enthusiasm with their back against the wall, and appeared to carry that energy throughout the season.
My whole point was that watching the 2 teams the Mets seemed to have had more on the field and in the dugout energy throught the entire season than the Cardinals did. I view that as chemistry because I see players truely excited to play, and excited for one anothers success. Obviously clubhouse chemistry I have no idea. I have no idea who goes to the bars with one another, who sits alone on the team plane or anything like that.
Online
As for the Yankees, I don't think it's A-Rod specifically, but they've lost the mojo that they had. The current team is heads and shoulders above the late-90's dynasty in terms of talent. O'Neil vs. Abreu? A-Rod vs. Broscius (sp?)? Tino vs. Giambi? Even in the rotation, Johnson, Mussina, etc. should be better than Wells and Cone.
But the late-90's Yankees were an efficient winning machine. An unstoppable force. Down by 2? No matter, they'll get two guys on and Tino will hit a 3 run bomb. Was it luck? Was it chemistry? Who knows, but I think it's clear that despite the overabundance of talent now, they're not the same.
--P--
- Popeye_Card
- GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
- Posts: 29873
- Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
I agree with this.clement wrote:I think chemistry (or relationships, or whatever you want to call it) matters and in some cases can matter a great deal. But it's impossible to measure, so it's easily dismissed. I think it probably matters in some other sports more where there is more player performance dependence (soccer, basketball).
As for the Yankees, I don't think it's A-Rod specifically, but they've lost the mojo that they had. The current team is heads and shoulders above the late-90's dynasty in terms of talent. O'Neil vs. Abreu? A-Rod vs. Broscius (sp?)? Tino vs. Giambi? Even in the rotation, Johnson, Mussina, etc. should be better than Wells and Cone.
But the late-90's Yankees were an efficient winning machine. An unstoppable force. Down by 2? No matter, they'll get two guys on and Tino will hit a 3 run bomb. Was it luck? Was it chemistry? Who knows, but I think it's clear that despite the overabundance of talent now, they're not the same.
--P--
- mcgee51taguchi99
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 3649
- Joined: May 25 06, 2:47 pm
- Location: Crying/injoyin watching tha Crew in tha Playoffs!!!
To expand on this point, didn't it seem like anyone they picked up near the trade deadline was a difference-maker in the playoffs?Popeye_Card wrote:I agree with this.clement wrote:I think chemistry (or relationships, or whatever you want to call it) matters and in some cases can matter a great deal. But it's impossible to measure, so it's easily dismissed. I think it probably matters in some other sports more where there is more player performance dependence (soccer, basketball).
As for the Yankees, I don't think it's A-Rod specifically, but they've lost the mojo that they had. The current team is heads and shoulders above the late-90's dynasty in terms of talent. O'Neil vs. Abreu? A-Rod vs. Broscius (sp?)? Tino vs. Giambi? Even in the rotation, Johnson, Mussina, etc. should be better than Wells and Cone.
But the late-90's Yankees were an efficient winning machine. An unstoppable force. Down by 2? No matter, they'll get two guys on and Tino will hit a 3 run bomb. Was it luck? Was it chemistry? Who knows, but I think it's clear that despite the overabundance of talent now, they're not the same.
--P--
Online
- Popeye_Card
- GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
- Posts: 29873
- Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
- mcgee51taguchi99
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 3649
- Joined: May 25 06, 2:47 pm
- Location: Crying/injoyin watching tha Crew in tha Playoffs!!!
- TabascoElvis
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 5730
- Joined: June 15 06, 8:29 am
- Location: Library of Congress? Detroit? Beyond the sun?
vin, wasn't there some problems between Cabrera and a couple of guys? I recall some scuffling in the dugout between innings. Maybe it was just an isolated incident though, not something that carried on beyond that one game... I don't know.vinsanity wrote: But I'd say a team like Florida last year, who lost a lot, had some great chemistry. There doesn't seem to be ego's on that team and they have(had) a coach who backed them. Where as a team like the Mets who won, I just didn't see them as all that cohesive, too many players on that team and not enough members. Floyd, Delgado, Beltran and Reyes all seem like me guys.
- doe_boy
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 10752
- Joined: April 25 06, 9:48 am
- Location: Appleton, WI
Chemistry is only talked about with winning teams. The term is usually applied in retrospect. You never hear someone say, 'Hey, that team sure sucks, but they have great chemistry.
The Oakland A's of the 70's hated each other with a passion and, in spite of that, won two world series. Later, the 'Bronx Zoo' Yankees proved that a disfunctional clubhouse can still walk out on the field and win.
Guess it all boils down to what is meant by the word. Chemistry sometimes produces explosions and flames. Other times, it produces less volatile events.
The Oakland A's of the 70's hated each other with a passion and, in spite of that, won two world series. Later, the 'Bronx Zoo' Yankees proved that a disfunctional clubhouse can still walk out on the field and win.
Guess it all boils down to what is meant by the word. Chemistry sometimes produces explosions and flames. Other times, it produces less volatile events.
- clement
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 6022
- Joined: April 20 06, 10:26 pm
But can't those examples you cited be exceptions? The conventional wisdom is that you need a strong bullpen, an ace, a deep rotation, lots of power in your lineup, some speed, etc. to be a championship calibre team. But every so often a team will win despite not having one or more of the above. So good chemistry, good relationships, or good teamwork (or whatever you want to call it) is just one of many factors that lead to success. If you have it, your chances for success are better. If you don't, it doesn't automatically mean failure, it just means you lack one piece of the puzzle to winning.doe_boy wrote:Chemistry is only talked about with winning teams. The term is usually applied in retrospect. You never hear someone say, 'Hey, that team sure sucks, but they have great chemistry.
The Oakland A's of the 70's hated each other with a passion and, in spite of that, won two world series. Later, the 'Bronx Zoo' Yankees proved that a disfunctional clubhouse can still walk out on the field and win.
Guess it all boils down to what is meant by the word. Chemistry sometimes produces explosions and flames. Other times, it produces less volatile events.
I guess I see it more as teamwork than whatever this term "chemistry" means. I work with teams all the time, though they aren't sports teams. Sometimes I'll see teams put together that have the most individual talent, but will produce very poorly. Other times teams that don't look too good on paper do exceptionally well. That doesn't necessarily mean that the teams that perform well are the ones that just get along well. Conflict, if managed well, can be very functional. I realize that teams in a professional/business setting doesn't translate directly to sport, but I think some parallel is at least possible.
And yeah, sometimes there are teams that feel that they work really well together and have that "chemistry" that simply don't perform well. It could be that they have the chemistry, but lack the other things needed (perhaps talent?). Just because we (or the media) don't talk about the good chemistry on losing teams doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.