How do you price team chemistry?

[Ankiel84]

Sorry but baseball players don't play worse because they don't like someone on their team. That idea is just silly. What matters is tangible stats, not some perception of "chemistry." Have you ever seen a team that was absolutely terrible because their players sucked, but everyone talked about what great chemistry they had? Of course not, because the whole idea of "team chemistry" is BS.

If you have a lineup and rotation of all high producing players you will win a lot of games over the course of the season. If that same team loses in the playoffs, it's not cause they had bad chemistry, it's cause the playoffs is such a small sample size and really doesn't show the "BEST" team. The best team is most represented by the best regular season record.

[Jmodene]

Team chemistry has little to do with how much players like each other (Tinker hated Evers, for instance, but they were a top DP combo for many years). What it refers to more is how well players play together as a team. And I would submit that a team of superstars is less likely to play well as a team, simply because superstars are (generally) used to doing it all by (and for) themselves.

The point made earlier in the thread about the Yankees having been a better team when much of their core was guys who had come up through their system rather than having been brought aboard later was an excellent point, I thought.

[Magneto]

Yeah because Shaq and Kobe proved you need to have great chemsitry and love each other to win championships.

[Jmodene]

Perfect example. Those two guys hated each other - but played well together, which in professional sports is all that really matters.

[Ankiel84]

Perfect example. Those two guys hated each other - but played well together, which in professional sports is all that really matters.

That isn't chemistry; that's two players that are really freaking good... that's all.


Chemistry is an illusions, just like a "clutch" hitter or a "gritty" player. Give me 5 pitchers with ERA's around 3.50 and 8 .800+ OPS position players and they'll win ballgames. It's not chemistry, it's good players.

[haltz]

And I would submit that a team of superstars is less likely to play well as a team, simply because superstars are (generally) used to doing it all by (and for) themselves.

Like what? Hitting homers and making web gems for themselves?

The point made earlier in the thread about the Yankees having been a better team when much of their core was guys who had come up through their system rather than having been brought aboard later was an excellent point, I thought.

The last Yankee team to win the World Series had 85 pythagorean wins.

[Izzyman]

Perfect example. Those two guys hated each other - but played well together, which in professional sports is all that really matters.

That isn't chemistry; that's two players that are really freaking good... that's all.


Chemistry is an illusions, just like a "clutch" hitter or a "gritty" player. Give me 5 pitchers with ERA's around 3.50 and 8 .800+ OPS position players and they'll win ballgames. It's not chemistry, it's good players.

Maybe having guys get along in the clubhouse isn't important but it helps to have chemistry on the field.
Also I don't know how you can say there is no such thing as a clutch hitter. The players are humans not robots or play station charactors.

[Bo Hart]

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?

It is working. They win. A lot. And in a tougher league than us, too. They've made the playoffs every year since having a payroll over $100 million. How many times have they missed out on a division title since then? Once?

You can not use this season's Yankees as a barometer for what kind of affects having a lot of superstars has on a team. For starters, it's too early. Secondly, it's not the superstars that are doing them in -- its the lack thereof. They're tossing guys named "Jeff Karstens" and "Chase Wright" out there to start games for them. Guys that are out there in place of pitchers like Mike Mussina and Chien Ming Wang (well, Wang just came back but the point stands).

Ultimately, here is the answer I'm content with: the Yankees have not won a World Series because the playoffs, as Billy Beane so eloquently put it, "are a ****ing crapshoot." The sample size is too small. Theoretically-speaking, a team could have three bad games and be eliminated from the playoffs. THREE. A 162-game season is much more revealing than a three game span. Every team is going to go on a three game losing streak during a season (OK, well most are) -- even playoff teams.

To further drive my point: the Yankees didn't win the World Series because of chemistry? Their playoffs lasted nine games. Let's say that chemistry does exist, and plays a huge role in winning and losing. What were more reflective of the amount of a chemistry the Yankees existent on their team: 162 regular season games (97 wins, .599 WPCT) or 9 post-season games (3 wins, .333 WPCT)?


As for chemistry itself: yes, I do believe it exists. Some people can and will strip the human element completely out of the game. However, I certainly believe it exists, its just that I do think it's blown out of proportion. I think its a bonus -- something that is complementary to success... not integral to it.


I don't think the Cardinals won last season due to chemistry. Instead, I think its because the right guys got hot at the right time. Weaver and Suppan really pitched above their heads. Breaks started going our way (look at the plethora of flukish errors in the World Series). Over a short span, things like that are amplified and have an enormous impact (allowing lesser teams to come out on top). That's what makes baseball so great, in my opinion. The long haul of the regular season rightfully determines who gets a shot at the Championship. But once you get to the playoffs, it doesn't matter what you did in the regular season; the series (plural) are so short that anything can happen.

[misssaner]

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.

Baseball is a wonderful game in which 99% of the time players acting in their own self-interest are helping the team. You take your AB and field your position whether you hate that guy next to you in the lineup or not. This was evident to me a long time before I knew what Baseball Prospectus was. Winning makes guys happy, happy equals fun and smiles equal chemistry. "Chemistry" is always a hindsight pronouncement. If it's simply about doing your job I don't think that should be considered chemistry.

Chemistry is just romanticizing a game that's beautiful without the fiction.

$4.99/lb

David Eckstein: $848.30 + tax

I don't think players can perform as well if they're mad at everyone in the dugout(maybe some can).
Chemistry might not make a big difference but it could make THE difference.

I hated entire teams I was on and raked. (Although true, that's more of a joke.)

Maybe A-Rod and Sheffield had a tiff that affected a series-making-or-breaking AB. I don't buy it, but whatever. This is a far cry from the the "too many superstars" mantra that people use to explain away the flukiness of the playoffs. Hardly something to prescribe to a set of a couple of games when it's not apparent whatsoever as the team goes 394-254 in that four-year span.

edit - ugh. quoting a spelling mistake

I definitly agree with izzy. I play softball, sing at school, and cheerlead, if I dont like my partners i doesn't work

[Dillagii]

Welcome Aboard, miss. Enjoy your stay at GRB!