The almighty "chemistry"...

Balltilyafall4 · Post by **Balltilyafall4** » March 5 07, 9:03 pm

Been in a discussion about this for about an hour now with a friend of mine...

Is chemistry over-stated? Over-valued?

Is chemistry a result of winning or losing or is it the cause of it?

Personally, I think chemistry is a result of winning or losing and teams have great chemistry when things are going good and terrible chemistry when things are going bad...

Is it over-rated? Thoughts?

stlmark · Post by **stlmark** » March 5 07, 9:07 pm

I think sometimes chemistry is overrated and sometimes it's not. Last year the Cards won with LaRussa/Rolen having their hissy fit, yet I think Preston Wilson helped the chemistry by keeping the guys loose with his humor. I don't know, it's a tough one to figure out.

vinsanity · Post by **vinsanity** » March 5 07, 9:34 pm

It's easier to spot on a team with good chemistry whose winning or team with poor chemistry that's losing.

The Yankees have been winning, just not WS, since A-Rod got there - coincidence?

One of the Best Cardinal Teams in many many moons had some of the best Chemistry I've ever seen. The Giants have slowly declined as Bond's Ego inflates.

But I'd say a team like Florida last year, who lost a lot, had some great chemistry. There doesn't seem to be ego's on that team and they have(had) a coach who backed them. Where as a team like the Mets who won, I just didn't see them as all that cohesive, too many players on that team and not enough members. Floyd, Delgado, Beltran and Reyes all seem like me guys.

JohnnyJay · Post by **JohnnyJay** » March 5 07, 9:40 pm

Losing....is a disease

Leroy · Post by **Leroy** » March 5 07, 9:47 pm

Is this about Barry? This is about Barry isn't it? It's about Barry.

Seriously, winning seems to come before chemistry in my opinion.

a_smith · Post by **a_smith** » March 5 07, 10:00 pm

vinsanity wrote:It's easier to spot on a team with good chemistry whose winning or team with poor chemistry that's losing.

The Yankees have been winning, just not WS, since A-Rod got there - coincidence?

is chemistry a huge deal- no
does it play a little role- sure

is the yankees losing the fault of A-rod--i would call that a dead horse that I will feel free and beat

i have a hard time with that claim- it seems it has a lot more to do with the pitching not being as good, torre burning out the pen in the season more than he did in earlier years so that pen is burned out by the post season, the offense not being as good, and the team just not playing as well in the post season.

I have a hard time not thinking that the yankees are not a lot better with arod than the brosius or aaron freaking boone, but ymmv

a

vinsanity · Post by **vinsanity** » March 5 07, 10:07 pm

a_smith wrote:
vinsanity wrote:The Yankees have been winning, just not WS, since A-Rod got there - coincidence?
is the yankees losing the fault of A-rod--i would call that a dead horse that I will feel free and beat

i have a hard time with that claim- it seems it has a lot more to do with the pitching not being as good, torre burning out the pen in the season more than he did in earlier years so that pen is burned out by the post season, the offense not being as good, and the team just not playing as well in the post season.

That was my point though. I wasn't trying to say that it was his fault. But if they are a better team with him than Aaron Boone why aren't they winning more? Why does a team that was nothing but smiles from 96-02 (even when they didn't take home a WS) seem so catty now?

I think it definetly plays a role...but it's the difference between winning 100 and a 105. It's the difference between losing 85-95 games and losing 105. A bad team with chemistry can still develop some young players, whereas a bad team with bad chemistry is going to bicker and just be slothy in practice in the field.

A good team with bad chemistry will lose more 1 games than a good team with good chemistry. It's nto essential, measurable or even significant. But I do think the whole thing is the nature vs nurture argument. What comes first the chicken or the egg? Well this is half egg-half chicken. A winning team creates more chemistry, but a team with chemistry creates more winning. It's a circular paradox IMO.

Fan_In_NY · Post by **Fan_In_NY** » March 5 07, 10:10 pm

vinsanity wrote:It's easier to spot on a team with good chemistry whose winning or team with poor chemistry that's losing.

The Yankees have been winning, just not WS, since A-Rod got there - coincidence?

One of the Best Cardinal Teams in many many moons had some of the best Chemistry I've ever seen. The Giants have slowly declined as Bond's Ego inflates.

But I'd say a team like Florida last year, who lost a lot, had some great chemistry. There doesn't seem to be ego's on that team and they have(had) a coach who backed them. Where as a team like the Mets who won, I just didn't see them as all that cohesive, too many players on that team and not enough members. Floyd, Delgado, Beltran and Reyes all seem like me guys.

I'd have to disagree with you on the Mets team. I am in NY so I see them a little bit closer. Their clubhouse may be a little more relaxed than the Cards, but they definately have a ton of chemistry there. Part of it could be Minaya's desire to get as many Latin American players, but they certainly played all of last season with a ton of heart and with a ton of energy. Floyd was on of their leaders and Delgado was known to be their quiet old man who shared experience. Along with Julio Franco they provided the guidance. They relied on Reyes and Wright for their fire and youthful energy. Pedro and El Duque enjoyed being with the club even when injured. Possibly the only one that seems standoffish is Beltran who I think has just shyed away from the leadership role. Honestly, if you look at the season on a whole, the Mets had a lot more character and a lot more chemistry than the Cards had.

Post by **planet planet** » March 5 07, 10:16 pm

a_smith wrote:
vinsanity wrote:It's easier to spot on a team with good chemistry whose winning or team with poor chemistry that's losing.

The Yankees have been winning, just not WS, since A-Rod got there - coincidence?
is chemistry a huge deal- no
does it play a little role- sure

is the yankees losing the fault of A-rod--i would call that a dead horse that I will feel free and beat

i have a hard time with that claim- it seems it has a lot more to do with the pitching n being as good, torre burning out the pen in the season more than he did in earlier years so that pen is burned out by the post season, the offense not being as good, and the team just not playing as well in the post season.

I have a hard time not thinking that the yankees are not a lot better with arod than the brosius or aaron freaking boone, but ymmv

a

Great topic, great response.

Any Yankee fan that has a problem with ARod is misguided in my opinion. I know it's drilled home so many times on here, but small sample size! Chemistry was not the issue there. I know there were a minority of fans down on Rolen after the '04 WS. Would you write him off or feel compelled to trade him? That makes no sense.

I agree with a_smith, I think chemistry has a small amount to do with a team's success (as it would in any office), but talent/health has at least 85% to do with it.

vinsanity · Post by **vinsanity** » March 5 07, 10:18 pm

Fan_In_NY wrote: I'd have to disagree with you on the Mets team. I am in NY so I see them a little bit closer...Honestly, if you look at the season on a whole, the Mets had a lot more character and a lot more chemistry than the Cards had.

I'll concede the first part, it's tough to argue when I'm not a Mets fan or even follow the team from day to day. It's just a vibe, a feeling. But I'ma disagree with the second. Especially when you start using adjectives like a lot more, character and chemistry.

Yea the the Cards had their bumps (10 game losing streaks galore), but I don't remember anyone getting snippy (Rolen-LaRussa aside - cause I don't think it was what people blew it up to be) with each other. I don't remember any finger pointing or the such. I remember a buncha guys taking the field after 5 or 6 or 8 or 10 losses and just doing what they had to do. Eeach one trying hard, maybe too much so, to do their job and pull it back it up. It wasn't a 2004 Cards Chemistry it wasn't the Astros in 05 after Pujols lit Lidge up. But it wasn't A-Rod-Jeter Finger pointing. It wasn't teamates calling others out like San Fran.

If you say they as much or maybe lil more character and chemistry, that I can believe. But not a lot more.