Team chemistry!

[Thurston Fluff]

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.

 

I agree but there is a small part of the game that isn't stats oriented like hitting to the right side to move the runner over or working hard on learning opposing hitters to position yourself to make a play defensively. The money aspect doesn't cover everything. Those other parts can be effected by attitude.

 

 

There is no evidence that playing on a good or bad team with good or bad chemistry has any measurable effect on performance.

 

I don't dispute this I just think the reason there isn't any is not because it doesn't exist but because it is hard to measure correctly. The Earth was round even before we knew how to calculate it actually was.

 

For many of you, you don't need proof of something to "know" it is important. Hell, we've got player quotes!

 

Touche! Sometimes I actually do believe what players and managers think/say is actually important. Just gotta weed through all the coach/player speak to find those nuggets.

[naivin]

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

 

Define proof. As humans we have been blessed with the gifts of rational thought and deductive reasoning, whereby we can reasonably draw conclusions based on evidence and observations that may or may not show up on a stat sheet or some other means of quantifying results. You discount 'player quotes' because you can't directly correlate them to some sort of statistic...that doesn't mean they don't provide proof.

 

Those quotes you refer to are from palyers, GM's, coaches, etc. saying they think it makes a difference. You are more or less saying that it doesn't; an argument supported by...What? Who is it that doesn't need proof to "know" it is (not) important?

[Tbadder]

point one: team chemistry can't be quantified therefore it can't be significant

 

point two: team chemistry results in a variety of outcomes on a line ranging from bad to good

 

point three: team chemistry is a debilitating myth

[Thurston Fluff]

point one: team chemistry can't be quantified therefore it can't be significant

 

 

For the sake of argument lets assume this is true. What stat or calculation is there to show something that cannot be quantified is insignificant? If there are none and your premise is true then I used that premise to prove it is false. When something can be used to disproves itself is likely faulty logic. That appears to be the case here.

 

point two: team chemistry results in a variety of outcomes on a line ranging from bad to good'

 

Since we don't have the information available to know if the outcomes would be the same in exact circumstances this is far from verified. If the scientific method is not applicable why do you keep using it? To me it's like using a telephone to dig a hole. If the first type of phone doesn't work and the next brand of phone you try doesn't work any better does that mean it is impossible to dig a hole? No use the right equipment for the job and maybe it will get done. Same here. The normal methods of verification not only doesn't but logically can't work If something can't work why not quit trying to use it?

 

 

point three: team chemistry is a debilitating myth

 

How do you quantify that? If you can't does that mean it isn't?

[Fatter than Joey]

point one: team chemistry can't be quantified therefore it can't be significant

 

The vastness of the universe can't be quantified but it is significant. Things that can't be measured could be vast as well as minute.

 

I am pretty sure that Team Chemistry is like the Power of Love as theorized by Huey Lewis.

[Thurston Fluff]

I am pretty sure that Team Chemistry is like the Power of Love as theorized by Huey Lewis.

 

I always knew there was a real reason I liked your posts. Now I think it's because we are both old enough to know this reference.

[rluzinski]

Yeh, I read that "veteran presence " article and thought it was a complete crock. I guess 2007 Suppan, Jenkins and 2007 Counsell let their team fall apart! Wait a second. They fell apart and then came storming back and then faded late. Obviously, skill had everything to do with the great start and comeback but lack of veteran grit caused the collapse and fade. It's all so obvious in hindsight.

 

Just nonesense. A typical baseball fluff article.

 

And I'll gladly admit that I have no idea how team chemestry affects performance if everyone else can do the same. Couple that with no one even knowing what teams have good and bad chemestry (its apparently not tied to specific players and can actually come and go from year to year, even with the same personnel ) and we can all continue on with our lives, wholy and equally ignorant on this subject.

[Sundown Kid]

Team chemistry is certainly one ingredient that CAN help a team win, but there are other intangibles. And I think that all of the intangibles pale in comparison to the ultimate tangible quality, which is talent. In 1979 the Pittsburgh Pirates discoed their way to a WS title as a family. Led by Willie Stargell, there is no doubt that that team hand wonderful chemistry. Did it help them win against strong competition like the Orioles and Reds? Of course it did, because they believed it did. The A's of the early 1970s had chemistry too, but of a much different kind. They shared a mutual loathing of their owner and occasional hatred of each other. For whatever reason, they fed off that which enhanced their immense talent. You could a clubhouse filled with wonderful guys and lose. Or you could win a lot of games like the Red Sox in the mid-late 70s with their 25 players/25 cabs approach. Would they have beat the Yankees in '78 if they enjoyed each other's company more? We'll never know.