GatewayRedbirds.com

One of my best friends is a Yankee's "fan" and I'm always giving him crap about how they should just add more money to their payroll to improve their team. It baffles me how this has become one of the huge misconceptions by GM's around the league. It got me thinking about how important team chemistry really is. Torre isn't at fault for the Yankees, it's Cashman.

Look at the World Series Champions over the past 6 years:

2001: Arizona
2002: Anaheim
2003: Florida
2004: Boston
2005: Chicago Sox
2006: St. Louis

I don't have the exact salary figures on these teams during the years they won the Series, but I'd say that 5 of the 6 had relatively mediocre payrolls at the time. I'm pretty sure that Boston was the only one that has a top 5 payroll at the time they won it out of all these teams.

So, how long will it take teams like the Yankees to realize that you can't keep adding 20+ million dollar players to your payroll in hopes that you will eventually start winning. Superstars don't build chemistry or a team identity, it just doesn't happen. It seems like the successful pattern is to build from within, add some impact players along the way, and build up the team chemistry. All of the teams on this list that have won in the 21st century have had great team chemistry. So, I guess the question is, how do you build and pay for that?

Sure, guys like Eck aren't playing well, but you still need him. He steps up in the playoffs and he fits with the team. ESPN can talk all they want about superstars, high payrolls, inflated stats, and 100+ win teams, but when it comes down to it, I think history shows that team chemistry is way underrated. Heck, even when Pujols was struggling during the World Series last year, the rest of the team stepped up. Sure, it's mentioned every once and while, but it's funny to me that some payrolls are now reaching 400 million and it's doing absolutely nothing.

What do you guys think? Sure, we all know chemistry helps. But how much is it really undervalued?

Overvalued.

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Overvalued.

Agreed. Now if you wanna talk about some other sports and team chemistry, I think more emphasis can be placed on it.

lazypenguin wrote:Heck, even when Pujols was struggling during the World Series last year, the rest of the team stepped up...What do you guys think? Sure, we all know chemistry helps. But how much is it really undervalued?

So the rest of the team stepping up and playing well is because of chemistry? How can you prove that? Wasn't it just an instance of other players playing well at the same time Albert was playing poorly? That's not chemistry, that's good timing and luck.

Chemistry is a vague cliche and has little tangible value.

I guess it may help a team perform if they like each other a little more, but it would be awfully hard to prove that.

thrill wrote:

lazypenguin wrote:Heck, even when Pujols was struggling during the World Series last year, the rest of the team stepped up...What do you guys think? Sure, we all know chemistry helps. But how much is it really undervalued?

So the rest of the team stepping up and playing well is because of chemistry? How can you prove that? Wasn't it just an instance of other players playing well at the same time Albert was playing poorly? That's not chemistry, that's good timing and luck.

Chemistry is a vague cliche and has little tangible value.

I guess it may help a team perform if they like each other a little more, but it would be awfully hard to prove that.

My main point is that you can't keep stacking superstars on top of one another.

lazypenguin wrote:My main point is that you can't keep stacking superstars on top of one another.

Why not?

lazypenguin wrote:

thrill wrote:

lazypenguin wrote:Heck, even when Pujols was struggling during the World Series last year, the rest of the team stepped up...What do you guys think? Sure, we all know chemistry helps. But how much is it really undervalued?

So the rest of the team stepping up and playing well is because of chemistry? How can you prove that? Wasn't it just an instance of other players playing well at the same time Albert was playing poorly? That's not chemistry, that's good timing and luck.

Chemistry is a vague cliche and has little tangible value.

I guess it may help a team perform if they like each other a little more, but it would be awfully hard to prove that.

My main point is that you can't keep stacking superstars on top of one another.

Actually you can... If you have 5 pitchers that will produce WHIPs around 1.25 and 9 guys that can produce at least an .800 OPS you will win games. I don't care if they hate each other and have no chemistry, you'll still win a lot of games.

thrill wrote:

lazypenguin wrote:My main point is that you can't keep stacking superstars on top of one another.

Why not?

What if all the superstars liked eachother?

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.

Ankiel84 wrote:

lazypenguin wrote:

thrill wrote:

lazypenguin wrote:Heck, even when Pujols was struggling during the World Series last year, the rest of the team stepped up...What do you guys think? Sure, we all know chemistry helps. But how much is it really undervalued?

So the rest of the team stepping up and playing well is because of chemistry? How can you prove that? Wasn't it just an instance of other players playing well at the same time Albert was playing poorly? That's not chemistry, that's good timing and luck.

Chemistry is a vague cliche and has little tangible value.

I guess it may help a team perform if they like each other a little more, but it would be awfully hard to prove that.

My main point is that you can't keep stacking superstars on top of one another.

Actually you can... If you have 5 pitchers that will produce WHIPs around 1.25 and 9 guys that can produce at least an .800 OPS you will win games. I don't care if they hate each other and have no chemistry, you'll still win a lot of games.

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.

TheoSqua wrote:

thrill wrote:

lazypenguin wrote:My main point is that you can't keep stacking superstars on top of one another.

Why not?

What if all the superstars liked eachother?

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.