Team chemistry!

[leadheadned]

One of the best things this team has going for them is their depth and chemistry. Yes we could use another lefthanded bat and probably could upgrade but at what expense. Even the worst Brewer fan will admit that this team has hung in there together through a slow start and some potential landmines (Hall & Weeks benching). The vets we have picked up the last couple of years (Gabe, Kendall, Craig C, Cameron ) seem to have solidified the balance and been good for the club. I also have to credit Ned for staying positive when his neck was in the vise. Fun club to watch and pull for.

[Thurston Fluff]

It starts form the top and works it's way down with this team doesn't it? Mark A doesn't go Steinbrenner on his management team every two game losing streak, Melvin doesn't panic or overreact and Ned just keeps his team on an even keel through think and thin. The team has a good mix of players and they all seem to understand what is asked of them. I think more often than not that leads to happy players and good chemistry.

[Principessa21]

The idea that team chemistry breeds winning is a myth that makes me want to vomit on my keyboard.

[owbc]

Team Chemistry is a big deal in football but I doubt it contributes to winning. "The Bronx is Burning" is a perfect example.

 

However, it does result in positive reviews of Milwaukee by the players (see Jason Kendall) and should give us a better shot at contract extensions and free agents.

[Patrick425]

Team chemistry is certainly a very real aspect of any sport. Feeling good about the situation you are in and having a connection with the other players on your team has an undeniable effect on the performance on the playing field. Not sure how anyone does not agree with that.

[dadofandrew]

I'll take guys that can play over good guys any day. However, as stated above, it does attract free agents.

[eanelson4]

I'll take guys that can play over good guys any day. However, as stated above, it does attract free agents.

This really depends for me. To compare this to football, if I were in the Bengals shoes, there is no way I would have re-signed Chris Henry. The guy IS a problem. He insists on gang-banging and getting into trouble off of the field. I would take a guy with less talent over a guy who gets into trouble off the field any day of the week. The latter will do nothing buy shatter team chemistry and put the entire organization in a negative spotlight (again, see: Cincinnatti Bengals).

[Patrick425]

Everyone talks about team chemistry in terms of trouble makers on the team. I don't necessarily view it that way. You can have a bunch of do-good teetotallers on a team, but if the individuals on the team just do not get along with one another or if they have trouble communicating with one other, then I think that can have a negative effect on a teams performance. Not always, but in general.

[logan82]

Baseball, unlike football, doesn't really require players playing together. The batting matchups are one on one and other than a few instances with pitchers working with catchers, cutoffs or double plays, really doesn't require much interaction between fielders.

[Thurston Fluff]

I think enjoying coming to work every day is more important than some might think. With the amount of time players spend around each other liking the experience has to have some amount of effect to performance. I think a talented team with poor chemistry would still be better than a team with little talent and great chemistry. That said if you take the exact same team and add in good chemistry it would out perform the same team without the chemistry. That is why it's important to have it if possible. It maximizes the team's production.

 

Team Chemistry is a big deal in football but I doubt it contributes to winning. "The Bronx is Burning" is a perfect example.

 

I don't think a made for TV drama, even if it is based off a real team, is a good example at all. It is embellished to make the show worth watching.

[eanelson4]

Everyone talks about team chemistry in terms of trouble makers on the team. I don't necessarily view it that way. You can have a bunch of do-good teetotallers on a team, but if the individuals on the team just do not get along with one another or if they have trouble communicating with one other, then I think that can have a negative effect on a teams performance. Not always, but in general.

While I agree, and I didn't mean to imply that the type of guy that makes trouble off the field can't get along with everyone, I also can imagine how this kind of guy could get really annoying to the rest of the players who go about their lives like professionals. I would bet that many people view the entire Bengals organization differently now simply because a few trouble makers have made them all look bad. I guess my point was more of how a player like that would reflect on the organization as a whole, not just team chemistry.

 

 

Baseball, unlike football, doesn't really require players playing together. The batting matchups are one on one and other than a few instances with pitchers working with catchers, cutoffs or double plays, really doesn't require much interaction between fielders.

 

I understand this, but I think there is relevance to my example across most or all team sports. It was about how one guy who insists on getting in trouble can put the entire organization in a bad light. I certainly wouldn't want a player like that on the Brewers. Thankfully, baseball doesnn't seem to have as much of a problem with off-the-field issues as the NFL.

[BillScottCanRake]

While I'd never go so far as to say team chemistry doesn't matter at all, I'm not sure how much good chemistry really helps. And I think, in general, how much chemistry affects a teams performance is often overblown.

 

I don't want the Brewers to be a team of jerks and criminals, as I think terrible chemistry can be detrimental to a teams performance. That said, I'd rather have guys with talent that don't get along than guys I'd like my daughter to marry that aren't as talented. You've got to start with good raw materials, as good chemistry won't add velocity to a fast ball, or make a player faster, or improve their strike zone management, etc. In that regard, chemistry is a bonus rather than a basic requirement for having a good team.

 

I'm not saying that enjoying who you play with isn't a good thing, or that wanting to come to work because you have teammates you like isn't a good thing. But there are plenty of examples of teams winning "in spite of" poor chemistry, and since chemistry won't add velocity to a fast ball, or bit to a slider, or improve your eye at the plate, or make you run faster, I'm not sure how much of an affect it really does have.

[strawbossisevil]

How many weeks ago did Fielder punch Parra in the face? And our chemistry is good?

[Invader3K]

Team chemistry is overrated. I think it probably does have a small effect on a team...but over the course of a season, how many wins does that really translate to? 1 or 2, maybe?

 

Let's face it...as fans, we're on the outside looking in. None of us really know how well these guys do or don't get along together.

[rluzinski]

And when the Brewers were 4 games under, the team chemistry was terrible. Did winning a bunch of games improve it?

 

I don't completely discount team chemistry but when you are winning games, it's hard to not enjoy going to work every day. Terribly over rated.

 

Why is baseball always looking for anything to explain winning and losing BEFORE actual physical talent? I think compiling a group of players that are very good at playing the game of baseball is wayyyy more important than the thousands of other things I'm supposed to care about.

[mrfed8]

I don't completely discount team chemistry but when you are winning games, it's hard to not enjoy going to work every day. Terribly over rated.

After reading all of these posts stating that team chemistry is overrated, I ask this question - at your job, does your work and your colleagues' work improve when morale is high? I'd be willing to say most people would say yes.

 

Team chemistry is not as important as pure talent on the field, but it is an important tangible nonetheless.

[rluzinski]

No one seems to be discounting the possibility that team chemestry could have an effect on player performance. Most seem pretty prett convinced that it's pretty insignificant, compared to actual talent, however and the evidence supports that notion.

 

The fact that the media and fans pretend that there's a one to one correlation between winning chemestry makes it clear that no one even knows how to measure chemestry, much less measure its effect to wins and loses. Blind speculation.

[Thurston Fluff]

The fact that the media and fans pretend that there's a one to one correlation between winning chemestry makes it clear that no one even knows how to measure chemestry, much less measure its effect to wins and loses. Blind speculation.

 

You know I like you. I have learned quite a bit form you as well so I hope you take this as the constructive criticism I mean it as. You seem to discount or minimize anything that can't be measured in a neat orderly way. You do that not only with intangibles but with defense as well.

 

I think chemistry is not nearly as important as talent but once the talent is there chemistry makes that team better than it would have been without it. The Parra - Fielder situation is a prime example. When something like that happens a team that generally gets along can get past it quicker. When the team struggled earlier I don't think they had poor chemistry as much as they were willing to show their anger with each other because they had good chemistry. They all understood it was a dispute between family members not simply co-workers they couldn't wait to get away from. Chemistry helps in the low times even though it might not appear they have it at the time.

[naivin]

I'll take guys that can play over good guys any day.

Not sure why it has to be one or the other. I'll take both (Which seems to be what the Brewers have).

The fact that the media and fans pretend that there's a one to one correlation between winning chemestry...

Who's pretending that? I've seen suggestions that 'team chemistry' can help or hurt a team, but I have not seen anyone suggest a one to one correlation.

I can understand why the stats crew argues against the existence/importance of 'chemistry' because it cannot be quantifiably measured and therefore doesn't fit the template, or their view of the game. I agree that talent is what matters most, but players attitudes, moods, relationships etc. obviously have a major impact on what they do with that talent.

"It's the things you don't see, the little conversations by the lockers," said Melvin, who noted that holdover Craig Counsell also is influential in that regard. "They're talking baseball.

"It's bringing it all together," said Yost. "It's all part of the plan. We've got the right veterans. When Doug looked at it, that's the first question he asked: 'How will this guy fit in the clubhouse?'

We've got guys that are very calm and measured. That's not even talking about what they do on the field. That's the main thing everybody sees but the behind-the-scenes stuff is every bit as important, if not more."

[BillScottCanRake]

After reading all of these posts stating that team chemistry is overrated, I ask this question - at your job, does your work and your colleagues' work improve when morale is high? I'd be willing to say most people would say yes.

Isn't another way of asking this question:

 

At your job, does your work and your colleagues' work quality go down when moral is low?

 

Or, better than that:

 

At your job, does your work and your colleagues' work quality go down when moral is low to the point you are doing a poor job?

 

In my experience, co-workers who's job performance fluctuates wildly have other issues besides workplace chemistry. Whether it's a lack of ability, training, commitment, etc.

 

I'm lucky in that I work for a company currently is full of employees who's job performance isn't greatly affected by moral and chemistry or mood. If someone deals with a cranky customer that puts everyone in a bad mood, work still gets done at a high quality and in a timely manner. It is undoubtedly less fun and more "work", but we still do our jobs to the best of our ability because that's what we get paid to do regardless of the mood. We all are proud of our own work and proud of our collective work.

 

As Russ and others have said, no one is denying that moral or chemistry or whatever you want to call it has an affect. But the fact that teams never have "bad chemistry" when they are winning, and my own personal workplace experiences with good and bad moral, lead me to believe most people completely overrate it.

[monty57]

but we still do our jobs to the best of our ability because that's what we get paid to do regardless of the mood. We all are proud of our own work and proud of our collective work.

 

Posted at 9:10 am on a workday. Sorry, BSCR, maybe you work a different shift, but I just found that to be kind of funny.

[BillScottCanRake]

Posted at 9:10 am on a workday. Sorry, BSCR, maybe you work a different shift, but I just found that to be kind of funny.

 

That's ok, since you don't really know about my work schedule or what my job entails, I can see how you'd think that is funny.

[Principessa21]

If you think that bad team chemistry has a negative impact on a team's success, then I recommend you check out this article from U.S.S. Mariner. It's long but worth it.

[rluzinski]

Backcatcher, I may have undervalued defense in 2002 but I've learned a lot since then and have drastically revised my position. I decided to try and find evidence to support my unsubstantiated opinion and found the exact opposite was true. Crazy, huh? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

It's really not worth debating the value of chemestry since there is no way to even begin to know its value. No one knows. If someone can tell me what teams are going to do better than their individual projections suggest, I'd love to hear it. We all agree its good to have team chemestry but we don't know how to get it. We all would rather our favorite team have it but we what to expect if we don't.

 

I do know that, whether people want to accept it or not, the primary motivation for professional players is money. Since their future financial prospects are tied to their current production, most players seem to do just fine keeping their eye on the true prize. There is no evidence that playing on a good or bad team with good or bad chemestry has any measurable effect on performance. For many of you, you don't need proof of something to "know" it is important. Hell, we've got player quotes! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Thurston Fluff]

Couple things from the article

 

If it's how a team came together, or fell apart, something you can only see and use in an after-the-fact explanation, then it's a story, not an effect.

 

This is far from true. The inability to predict the unpredictable does not mean it does not have an effect. Even the idea that we should be able to predict which team will do what is the wrong way to judge it. It isn't about predicting which team is going to be better because they have chemistry. It's about getting chemistry to maximize the particular team's potential.

 

If you could at mid-season determine which teams playing badly to that point had maintained a good clubhouse attitude, and so would have a great second half, the evaluation of team chemistry might be useful and significant. But even here, given a half-season of data, prediction fails.

 

I thought well before the Brewers turned it around they would due to their ability to stick together and keep moving forward as a unit. It has been preached day in and day out throughout Ned's tenure. Now that it is actually happening it guess maybe it was predicted. There was an article in the JS today that the thing missing last year was the veteran presence and is a big difference this year. To me that is part of team chemistry. It is one thing to say there are no examples of it but maybe before doing that they should actually try it.

 

 

If chemistry can't provide any additional predictive information on which team will win a game, or a series, all the way up to a season, even if you're aware of what kind of chemistry and how strong it is, then what use is it to know?

 

Existence and useful knowledge are not the same thing. I say if a team is together, has good chemistry, it has the better chance of winning a series than if it didn't. The problem isn't the existence it is the inability to measure it to see if it exists. You cannot have the exact same team with chemistry go through the exact same circumstances without it. That means it is one of those things that cannot be measured. Some feel that means there is little or no impact because of that. That is the problem. By not having a way of knowing it could be minimal or it could be huge. We simply cannot know for sure.

The non stat guy in me feels chemistry is important because most managers or coaches in any sport I've ever been around or watched seem to think there is a real benefit. I guess I'm just willing to believe.

 

BTW if anyone sees the tooth fairy I need that money or my tooth back.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif