How do you price team chemistry?

[Bo Hart]

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.

It's not "BS," it's just overrated. If you think it's entirely non-existent... well, I'll just let the ellipses do the talking.

[clement]

Undervalued.

Especially today with all of the (over-)emphasis on statistics.

Statistics are certainly valid and they are highly more measurable and manipulable than things like leadership, teamwork, chemistry, etc. But if those intangible factors are meaningless or have such little impact, how come we have such a difficult time predicting who is going to win in any given year. Is predicting baseball team success any better or more accurate than predicting it in soccer, football, basketball or hockey (I honestly don't know the answer to this question). If baseball is just about statistical talent, then it should be quite easy to pick and project who is going to do what. What statistician picked the Tigers to have such a good season last year? And what explains all of the variance and deviations from averages and expectations? It's all just random?

Of course I agree with Ankiel84 that the best way to win is with talent, but we all know that the most talented teams don't always win, including during the regular season. Now if you just say that wins and losses and statistics in any given season are the measures of talent, then you have a tautology. That's easy.

T + L + C + F = Success.

T = talent
L = leadership
C= chemistry/teamwork (which does not just = liking/getting along)
F = good luck/fortune

T is the easy one to measure. There's not much if anything you can do about F. The other two are very difficult to quantify, and therefore too often easily dismissed, especially by engineers and accountants.

[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.

It's not "BS," it's just overrated. If you think it's entirely non-existent... well, I'll just let the ellipses do the talking.

I think you could make a valid argument that the perception of chemistry is completely dependent on talent. Like I said before, who ever heard anyone raving about the great chemistry of an untalented team? For all we know, the Cubs could have great chemistry, it doesn't suddenly make their starters better. The Royals could all get along great... In the field, they could anticipate each other and really like playing side by side. However, that doesn't change the fact that they are untalented and a talented team will beat up on them regardless of their "chemistry." While baseball is played on a team, the end result is a compilation of individual efforts. Very few things in baseball rely on the simultaneous effort of multiple players.

[Bo Hart]

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.

It's not "BS," it's just overrated. If you think it's entirely non-existent... well, I'll just let the ellipses do the talking.

I think you could make a valid argument that the perception of chemistry is completely dependent on talent. Like I said before, who ever heard anyone raving about the great chemistry of an untalented team? For all we know, the Cubs could have great chemistry, it doesn't suddenly make their starters better. The Royals could all get along great... In the field, they could anticipate each other and really like playing side by side. However, that doesn't change the fact that they are untalented and a talented team will beat up on them regardless of their "chemistry." While baseball is played on a team, the end result is a compilation of individual efforts. Very few things in baseball rely on the simultaneous effort of multiple players.

OK, well in that case I would just say that we're using an inaccurate barometer for chemistry. Just because "success" and "chemistry" are synonymous with each other in most people's minds doesn't mean that it should be that way.

Here's a way I like to think about it: lets say you have two teams. Both of them, hypothetically, have the exact same level of talent as each other. They are, for all intents and purposes, clones of each other. The only differences is their personalities.

If one team had what you'd define as "great" chemistry and the other had "poor" chemistry, don't you think that the former would outperform the latter, with everything else remaining constant?

[greenback44]

If baseball is just about statistical talent, then it should be quite easy to pick and project who is going to do what.

Talent is not static (see: Mulder, Mark). Rates of decay and improvement can be determined for large groups, but all the actuarial techniques in the world face obvious limits at the individual level (29 year-old professional athletes aren't supposed to die). Ultimately what we're interested in as fans are the exceptions. Furthermore baseball is itself a dynamic system. I'm pretty sure clouds lack sentience, but it's impossible to predict the weather more than a few days in advance.

[clement]

If baseball is just about statistical talent, then it should be quite easy to pick and project who is going to do what.

Talent is not static (see: Mulder, Mark). Rates of decay and improvement can be determined for large groups, but all the actuarial techniques in the world face obvious limits at the individual level (29 year-old professional athletes aren't supposed to die). Ultimately what we're interested in as fans are the exceptions. Furthermore baseball is itself a dynamic system. I'm pretty sure clouds lack sentience, but it's impossible to predict the weather more than a few days in advance.

True, but what explains fluctuations in performance? Good year to bad year to good year again? Just normal random variation? It could be, but when a variation extends to months or even a whole season, it becomes hard to categorize as random. And when people (including players and managers) constantly talk about the importance and effect of things like clubhouse chemistry, leadership, teamwork, gelling as a unit, and all of these "cliches", it just might mean that there is actually something to it. That we can't measure and quantify these things, while frustrating to those who strive to reduce the game to numbers, doesn't make them non-existent or irrelevant.

I doubt anyone would challenge the notion that a lot of this sport (like all sports) is psychological. So wouldn't it stand to reason that your psychology (as it pertains to your on-field performance) could be affected by your teammates, the clubhouse atmosphere, the chemistry on and off the field, and of course leadership both at the managerial and player level?

[Michael]

Even if good chemistry has a significant impact on a team how does GM create it? Should a GM even try?


Does winning create good chemistry or the other way around?

[thrill]

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?

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.[/quote]

Well since you declined to quote all the points that showed you hadn't done any research and were just saying things you thought were true because you heard someone else say, that just leaves you with a bunch of purely theoretical and unprovable points. I could reiterate that it is all hyperbole and metaphorical but I don't want to go too much more in depth because I don't think you are going to change your mind.

[clement]

Even if good chemistry has a significant impact on a team how does GM create it? Should a GM even try?

Maybe not GM directly, but in consultation wiyh the manager and coaching staff, could have an effect on this. That's one of the things that leadership is about. I suppose there are reasons other than performance why some players have been let go in the past (Ricardo Rincon, Keith Hernandez, Garry Templeton come to mind). The coaches/managers are the ones who can most affect chemistry and they are the ones who can see what is working or isn't working on a relational level in the clubhouse and on the field.

But more directly to your point. Chemistry or teamwork is very difficult to manipulate. It's alot easier to identify and sign to long-term deals extremely talented players (assuming no financial contraints). But just because it's hard to manipulate doesn't mean that it doesn't affect the bottom line (i.e., teams' performance).

Does winning create good chemistry or the other way around?

I imagine the causation/effect goes both ways. I'd say losing probably can cause bad chemistry too, and vice versa.

[fulldeck]

They way most of us reacted to the Rolen - TLR tiff, I would say it matters. Remember, Rolen considered waiving his no trade clause.

Oh and keep in mind that the two on the left side of my sig. don't get a long either.