Chemistry - A Test

[UBlink]

OK, a few months back there was a long thread or two arguing the existence or significance of team chemistry in baseball. Some said it's insignificant, some said it is significant but not subject to objective measurement, but like pornography, they know it when they see it.

 

So I propose a small experiment, and I suggest limiting it to the NL Central. We have the PECOTA predictions for 2006 results. I challenge those who believe in chemistry to rank the NL Central teams in order of their team chemistry, and at the end of the year we can see if team chemistry adds significantly to the predictive value of the PECOTA projections alone.

 

I'm suggesting just a rank ordering, but if someone who really understands team chemistry wants to assign an index to the relative strength or weakness of team chemistry that would be useful too.

 

Actually there are 2 tests here. The first is a test of the robustness of the concept - will several different observers of these teams give similar judgements about chemistry? If there is a wide disparity among rankings it would detract from the concept that chemistry can be consistently observed even if it can't be objectively measured. Or it might mean that some are better observers than others. But to compare it to the pornography example, even if a group of people may not agree on a definition of pornography, I would be surprised if rankings of pornographic material were wildly inconsistent.

 

The second test is the signinificance of chemistry. It would be very strong support for the existence of chemistry if a broad consensus of chemistry rankings improved the predictive value of PECOTA alone. Now is the time to put it to the test.

[badgercub]

I think this would be too hard to do because it really isn't a static thing. Things change all the time and you never know what can upset the "Chemistry" of a team.

[goonys evil twin]

I think this would be too hard to do because it really isn't a static thing. Things change all the time and you never know what can upset the "Chemistry" of a team.

 

In other words, there's no such thing as team chemistry affecting play, and we have to wait until the end of the season to see who won to then go back and apply the label of good chemistry or bad chemistry.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I think this would be too hard to do because it really isn't a static thing. Things change all the time and you never know what can upset the "Chemistry" of a team.

 

In other words, there's no such thing as team chemistry affecting play, and we have to wait until the end of the season to see who won to then go back and apply the label of good chemistry or bad chemistry.

 

Someone should consult a social psychologist (not necessarily you, goony). It's certainly not my area of expertise, but I don't doubt the existence of "chemistry" having an impact on performance.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't doubt the existence of "chemistry" having an impact on performance.

 

I do.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I don't doubt the existence of "chemistry" having an impact on performance.

 

I do.

 

Which is why I think someone who may know a social psychologist should get an opinion. Nothing personal, I just don't trust your opinion on this.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't doubt the existence of "chemistry" having an impact on performance.

 

I do.

 

Which is why I think someone who may know a social psychologist should get an opinion. Nothing personal, I just don't trust your opinion on this.

 

That's fine, but I wouldn't trust a pysche's opinion either.

[katway]

Team chemistry is hard to measure. Good team chemistry can result in teams winning games. But, good team chemistry can also be the result of teams winning games.

 

Nevertheless, there seems to be something to the notion of team chemistry. When given two equally talented teams, I will always pick the team that I perceive as having the greater team chemistry.

[Mark Priors Calves]

which came first the chicken or the egg?

[brinoch]

I don't buy that chemistry makes a difference in baseball games. It's not like a quarterback/receiver relationship in football, or a forward/attacking mid in soccer, or a team sport that allows direct cooperation.

 

Baseball, particularly on offense, is a series of individual competitions between the hitter on the one hand, and the pitcher and his defense on the other. Football, basketball, hockey, and soccer all require player-to-player passing, movement without the ball, and such associated activity -- jointly and simultaneously -- against another team.

 

Baseball is sequential and individual. Very different. I can understand the relationship among pitcher/catcher and perhaps SS/2B, but on offense? I don't see how a great relationship, understanding one another, playing together for a long time, and being friends makes a difference. Biggio and Bagwell are not like Manning and Harrison; there's no tangible advantage in having played together for a long time.

[UBlink]

I grew tired of all the theoretical arguments both ways relating to chemistry, and the beginning of a new season is a great time to put the theory to the test.

 

For the concept of chemistry to be useful, it has to have some predictive ability - we can't wait until after the fact, see one team overachieved and deduce, ouila, it must have been chemistry. It needs to be more like, this team doesn't look so impressive on paper, but because of their chemistry they are going to overachieve. Or, alternatively, this team has crappy chemistry and I don't care what they look like on paper they're going to suck. And this is a test to show how that works. So let's see some chemistry rankings.

[UBlink]

Team chemistry is hard to measure. Good team chemistry can result in teams winning games. But, good team chemistry can also be the result of teams winning games.

 

Nevertheless, there seems to be something to the notion of team chemistry. When given two equally talented teams, I will always pick the team that I perceive as having the greater team chemistry.

 

 

That's it exactly!! I'm just asking you, and everyone else, to rank the teams of the NL Central solely on the basis of team chemistry. It's easy.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Team chemistry is hard to measure. Good team chemistry can result in teams winning games. But, good team chemistry can also be the result of teams winning games.

 

Nevertheless, there seems to be something to the notion of team chemistry. When given two equally talented teams, I will always pick the team that I perceive as having the greater team chemistry.

 

 

That's it exactly!! I'm just asking you, and everyone else, to rank the teams of the NL Central solely on the basis of team chemistry. It's easy.

 

Only if you have access to all teams. We cannot judge the team chemistry because we have no idea how well the players get along.

[brinoch]

I love debates on about arbitrary values based on (at best) anecdotal evidence.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I love debates on about arbitrary values based on (at best) anecdotal evidence.

 

What if it's not anecdotal? I'm sure studies have been done at some level that relate. I'll search the Psych libraries later and see if I can dig something up.

[MembersOnlyJacket]

Baseball, as a game, is so dependent on individual performance on each play and game.

 

In football or basketball, you cannot discount team chemistry. A QB might throw to a guy he likes more, or a back may not block for someone he can't stand. A basketball team might freeze out a player. Or, a QB who has an experienced relationship with his backs and recievers will trust them on any given play. Or a basketball team who has played together for 2, 3, or 4 years can do great things with lesser talent based on familiarity with each other.

[UBlink]

Team chemistry is hard to measure. Good team chemistry can result in teams winning games. But, good team chemistry can also be the result of teams winning games.

 

Nevertheless, there seems to be something to the notion of team chemistry. When given two equally talented teams, I will always pick the team that I perceive as having the greater team chemistry.

 

 

That's it exactly!! I'm just asking you, and everyone else, to rank the teams of the NL Central solely on the basis of team chemistry. It's easy.

 

Only if you have access to all teams. We cannot judge the team chemistry because we have no idea how well the players get along.

 

But that makes it even better. If you have identified a significant factor in the success of a team that is difficult for the average person to observe, you can take advantage of that by spending the time to learn about team chemistry and "outperform the market" betting the sports book. If at this time last year you knew that the White Sox had outstanding chemistry that would propel them to the World Series, you could have made a bundle in Vegas.

 

Maybe that's why no one is sharing their rankings, because they are afraid we would all take advantage of them and reduce the odds.

[Derwood]

I love debates on about arbitrary values based on (at best) anecdotal evidence.

 

Can someone please rank the teams in order of srappiness, gamership and professional hitting please?

[Danny82]

I agree with the notion that team chemistry is *much* less of a factor in baseball than it is in football or basketball...but, I do think it is still a slightly relevant factor...one that shouldn't be discounted entirely.

 

JMO.

[brinoch]

I love debates on about arbitrary values based on (at best) anecdotal evidence.

 

Can someone please rank the teams in order of srappiness, gamership and professional hitting please?

 

I'll get on that right after I disprove Lavoisier and bring the Phlogiston theory back into modern science.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I love debates on about arbitrary values based on (at best) anecdotal evidence.

 

Can someone please rank the teams in order of srappiness, gamership and professional hitting please?

 

How 'bout spunk or hustle?

[Roast]

I love debates on about arbitrary values based on (at best) anecdotal evidence.

 

Can someone please rank the teams in order of srappiness, gamership and professional hitting please?

 

That made me giggle.

[moorecg]

At the risk of being flamed as I know how highly some people here think of "team chemistry" I wonder if there isn't something to it.

The main reason I give it some weight is this.

 

At the end of the day, baseball is the players job. Out of the many jobs I've had, and firms I've worked in, whether it be professional, or manual labor, the way I felt about the job, and attitude I had going in every day had a lot to do with the environment...If I hated my boss, or the people I worked with, it really doesn't matter how much I like the work, if you hate who you're working for or with I think performance suffers.

In an office environment, if you've got a bunch of people who want to be there you usually get better results, and I'm never upset to see the more negative people leave cause it just makes life a little more livable....how do you measure it? Heck, I don't know, how many games is it worth? I don't know that either...but I'd agree with the pornography analogy...I think you know it when you see it and I think it has some effect.

 

just my 2 cents.

[UBlink]

At the risk of being flamed as I know how highly some people here think of "team chemistry" I wonder if there isn't something to it.

The main reason I give it some weight is this.

 

At the end of the day, baseball is the players job. Out of the many jobs I've had, and firms I've worked in, whether it be professional, or manual labor, the way I felt about the job, and attitude I had going in every day had a lot to do with the environment...If I hated my boss, or the people I worked with, it really doesn't matter how much I like the work, if you hate who you're working for or with I think performance suffers.

In an office environment, if you've got a bunch of people who want to be there you usually get better results, and I'm never upset to see the more negative people leave cause it just makes life a little more livable....how do you measure it? Heck, I don't know, how many games is it worth? I don't know that either...but I'd agree with the pornography analogy...I think you know it when you see it and I think it has some effect.

 

just my 2 cents.

 

I understand the theories behind the impact of team chemistry and agree that they make sense theoretically. What I'm trying to do is provide a test of the predictive value of the theories.

 

I hope this doesn't come across as flaming, but how do you think team chemistry will impact the NL Central division this year? Can you identify any team with particularly good or bad team chemistry?

 

The PECOTA people have some faith in their statistics as predictors and have chosen to publish them before the season. Is it unrealistic to ask for a at least a ranking of team chemistry?

[CubinNY]

I don't doubt the existence of "chemistry" having an impact on performance.

 

I do.

 

Which is why I think someone who may know a social psychologist should get an opinion. Nothing personal, I just don't trust your opinion on this.

 

I am a psychologist with a Ph.D. in the field.

 

This issue is the deadest of dead horses, but I like Ublink's idea and think it well worthwhile to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

 

My opinon is that chemistry is an outcome not a cause. Much in the same way "self-esteme" is an outcome and not a cause, no matter what the pop psychologists want to tell us.

 

Win and you get people liking one another.

 

Lose and people will start to gripe.

 

Someone once said victory has a thousand mothers but failure is an orphan. Well, something similar can be said about chemistry except for at the consequence end instead of the antecedent end. Winning begets good chemistry and losing begets bad chemistry.

 

Chemistry is a result not a cause, if it is anything.