The almighty "chemistry"...

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
User avatar
Fan_In_NY
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 5184
Joined: April 18 06, 7:22 pm
Location: Birthplace of Baseball- Hoboken, NJ

Post by Fan_In_NY »

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.

Online
User avatar
Popeye_Card
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
Posts: 29873
Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am

Post by Popeye_Card »

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).
I agree with this.

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--

User avatar
mcgee51taguchi99
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 3649
Joined: May 25 06, 2:47 pm
Location: Crying/injoyin watching tha Crew in tha Playoffs!!!

Post by mcgee51taguchi99 »

Popeye_Card wrote:
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).
I agree with this.

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--
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?

Online
User avatar
Popeye_Card
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
Posts: 29873
Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am

Post by Popeye_Card »

mcgee51taguchi99 wrote: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?
Image

But seriously, I'm trying to think of the guys that they picked up mid-season.

--P--

User avatar
mcgee51taguchi99
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 3649
Joined: May 25 06, 2:47 pm
Location: Crying/injoyin watching tha Crew in tha Playoffs!!!

Post by mcgee51taguchi99 »

Yeah you're right, I can't think of anyone past Leyritz and Cecil Fielder. Maybe I'm thinking more along the lines of guys like D Strawberry and Shane Spencer - it just seemed like they were mid-season pickups because they didn't do anything or play much in the regular season.

User avatar
TabascoElvis
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 5730
Joined: June 15 06, 8:29 am
Location: Library of Congress? Detroit? Beyond the sun?

Post by TabascoElvis »

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.
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.

User avatar
doe_boy
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 10752
Joined: April 25 06, 9:48 am
Location: Appleton, WI

Post by doe_boy »

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.

jagtrader
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 10968
Joined: June 5 06, 10:01 am

Post by jagtrader »

Players don't have to get along. But if your best players have bad attitudes or poor work ethics, it spreads to the rest of the team and that can affect performance. This is the same as any work environment.

User avatar
clement
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 6022
Joined: April 20 06, 10:26 pm

Post by clement »

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.
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.

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.

User avatar
Jocephus
99% conan clips
Posts: 63640
Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm

Post by Jocephus »

this is chemistry

Image

Post Reply