How do you price team chemistry?

[cabby7588]

I'm pretty sure the Yankees won about 10 world series in 9 years when they had a payroll under $100mil...and haven't won once since it has been over $100mil. (and for that matter, $200mil). To say team chemistry is overvalued is just stupid, especially come playoff time. A bunch of superstars normally don't like each other and for the most part, it doesn't work out. The Yankees need more Robinson Cano's and less Jason Giambi's. Showing the previous World Champions is a great example of this.

[haltz]

You can look at their stats on their individual teams all you want. But once they all come under one team they start to fall off for some reason. That is my question, why? Look at the Yankees. And not just this year.

The Yankees are leading the league in runs per game. It's their pitching that has let them down, and I don't think you can say that all nine of their starters are defected superstars.

[haltz]

The Yankees need more Robinson Cano's and less Jason Giambi's. Showing the previous World Champions is a great example of this.

It just shows how fluke-y the playoffs are. Giambi and Cano had very good years each, last year, regardless of salary or which farm system they were produced from. Giambi was the better hitter, Cano gets big points for positional adjustment.

[TimeForGuinness]

I agree it's overvalued...but as an example, where do you bat all of your superstars.

IE: Edmonds refuses to hit any higher or lower in the order...how do you deal with that?

I guess, I wonder how one deals with all the primadonnas?

[thrill]

I do agree with you though. Look at the Yankees even. They had the most success while the core of their team was the players that came up from the farm system. Once they started stacking the payroll their success deteriorated.

Exactly, that is what I've been trying to get at.

With all due respect, as Cardinals fans, recent history should have taught you otherwise. We just won a World Series (which is what I assume you are measuring success by) with our worst team since 1999. 2004 was our best team by far and they didn't have the same "success" as last year's team despite winning 22 more games.

Yankees - Year - W-L - Final Outcome - Number of homegrown players in starting lineup, rotation and bullpen
1996: 92-70 (won World Series) - 2 in the lineup, 2 starters, 1 in the bullpen.
1997: 96-66 (lost in Al championship) 2 in the lineup, 1 in the rotation, 1 in the bullpen.
1998: 114-48 (won ws) 3 in the lineup, 1 in the rotation, 1 in the pen.
1999: 98-64 (won ws) Same as 98.
2000: 87-74 (won ws) 5, 1, and 2.

Now all the spending starts:
2001: 95-65 (AL Champs)
2002: 103-58 (lost in divisional series to eventual champs)
2003: 101-61 (AL Champs)
2004: 101-61 (you know the story)
2005: 95-67 (lost in divisional series)
2006: 97-65 (lost to tigers)

So what do we see? Once again people don't research and they attribute more world series rings to "chemisty" and homegrown talent when it reality, there wasn't much homegrown talent on those teams. 2000 had the most and it was also one of their weaker lineups in the stretch with such homegrown studs as Ricky Ledee and Shane Spencer.

In reality, the high payroll yankees of the 21st century have won more games but run into some better teams in the playoffs.

I'm pretty sure the Yankees won about 10 world series in 9 years when they had a payroll under $100mil...and haven't won once since it has been over $100mil.

This just shows how misinformed you are. Every year from 1996 - 2000, the Yankees had the highest payroll in baseball except 1998 when the Orioles topped them by 7 million. The Yanks were still second.

To say team chemistry is overvalued is just stupid, especially come playoff time.

So last year's Cardinals team had better chemistry than any of the previous 7? I'd say overvaluing something that is completely unprovable or unmeasurable is stupid.

The Yankees need more Robinson Cano's and less Jason Giambi's. Showing the previous World Champions is a great example of this.

Robinson Cano was involved in zero of the previous Yankees championships so no it doesn't prove that. What is your point? That Jason Giambi is some sort of team cancer who's presence in the clubhouse was far more detrimental to his team's success than his ops+ of 157 was beneficial? That is ridiculous.

A bunch of superstars normally don't like each other and for the most part, it doesn't work out.

How on earth could you possibly know this?

[Asmodai]

I wouldn't pay a penny. They are professionals.

[Secret Weapon]

I'd say of the last 3 years, last year was by far the worst year for chemistry with the Cardinals. Supposedly the locker room was divided between Lation and non Latino players, you had a feud between Edmonds and LaRussa, and of course the feud between Rolen and LaRussa even during the playoffs.

Yet that was the team that won the WS, go figure.

[cabby7588]

I'm pretty sure the Yankees won about 10 world series in 9 years when they had a payroll under $100mil...and haven't won once since it has been over $100mil.

This just shows how misinformed you are. Every year from 1996 - 2000, the Yankees had the highest payroll in baseball except 1998 when the Orioles topped them by 7 million. The Yanks were still second.

OBVIOUSLY the Yankees have always had a big payroll, more than anyone...But if you look back at their teams prior, you don't have a superstar at every position. The Yankees are spending $200mil right now, and they suck. When they were spending less (and still paying the most), they didn't have AS MANY superstars, and they were awesome.

To say team chemistry is overvalued is just stupid, especially come playoff time.

So last year's Cardinals team had better chemistry than any of the previous 7? I'd say overvaluing something that is completely unprovable or unmeasurable is stupid.

The Cardinals may not have had better team chemistry last year than every other year, but I will tell you that they had better chemistry than the Yankees. Talent is great, and that's why the Yankees won so many games last year, and that's why the Cards won 100 games two years in a row. But when it's all said and done, chemistry does a weird thing. Shocker all the World Series winners over the past 5 years are typically Wild Card winners or 83 game winners.

The Yankees need more Robinson Cano's and less Jason Giambi's. Showing the previous World Champions is a great example of this.

Robinson Cano was involved in zero of the previous Yankees championships so no it doesn't prove that. What is your point? That Jason Giambi is some sort of team cancer who's presence in the clubhouse was far more detrimental to his team's success than his ops+ of 157 was beneficial? That is ridiculous.

I'm saying the Yankees need more hard working, under-payed kids instead of a bunch of Superstars that want it to be all about them.

A bunch of superstars normally don't like each other and for the most part, it doesn't work out.

How on earth could you possibly know this?[/quote] Once again, look at the Yankees since they have had a $100 and $200 million payroll over the past 4 years, it ISN'T WORKING. Sorry to be redundant, but how can you not see the Yankees as an example of this?


More than anything, a bunch of Super Stars is the worst thing you can have, and the Yankees are a great example of it.

Wow...15,00 quotes there.

[Izzyman]

I think chemistry is undervalued. Even if the Cardinals didn't have their best team chemistry last yearthey still had a bunch of good guys who were not going to get angry and stop trying if the manager benched the (Rolen).
Anyone who says chemistry doesn't matter has been reading to much Baseball Prospectus and Money Ball.

[Jocephus]

$4.99/lb